Was Creation Done in Six Days?

There are huge debates that flare up in Christendom about Creation.  IF you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, it is very clear in what it says:  God created and populated our planet with life, ending with the crown of creation, Adam and Eve, in six literal days.  The very first words of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 says:
 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then He says, at the end of the First day,
 So the evening and the morning were the first day.
 It uses the word ‘day,’ or 24-hours literally.  Then He repeats this exact phrase after each day of Creation: ….evening …morning …second day, and so on.  This repetition of 24-hour parameters supports the literal meaning of the word ‘day’ being 24-hour periods. In Exodus 20:11, at the time the Ten Commandments were given, it says this:  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
 It plainly says “six days.” It’s also true that the Sabbath day is, of course, one 24-hour period, in a week of 24-hour periods. Exodus 31:17 says the same thing, except it says that “on the 7^th day He (God) rested.”  Does it make sense to stretch the word ‘day’ to millions of years there?  Does it take millions of years for God to get up enough strength to continue on? There’s a rule in hermeneutics that says, use the literal meaning if at all possible. Given God’s omnipotence, it’s certainly possible He created all this in 6 days.  He could have created the earth to look old. Or, the Flood (since it reached mountaintops in depth) unleashed in rapid fashion a gigantic compression of weight, and a layer-upon-layer of mud in a disaster that could explain what has been found—but we haven’t seriously considered that idea; the experts smugly ignore those “wacko Christian scientists”--because their explanations are Biblical, not scientific, in origin. (Look up Institute for Creation Research, at ICR.org, or visit the narratives on the walls around Noah’s Ark in Kentucky for some real facts.  It's scientific, too). But given the “findings” of science, and their theories on evolution, we’re supposed to expand the word “day” in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years to allow their “science” to be assimilated into Scripture. So, modern  commentaries of Scripture often cave, and say ‘Yes, the word “day” in Genesis 1 likely means millions of years.’ So here we have a translation of a simple Bible word, “day,” redefined simply because science says so.  Actually, it seems that pastors and theologians are intimidated by science.  Some are even mind-pansied enough to accept evolution.
 Dr. John MacArthur has some wise words on this.  As before, I will Cliff Notes them, changing several phrases so as to offer explanation--but I have changed nothing of his ideas.  Read with enjoyment: 

No one gets past the first verse of the Bible without facing the test of submission to Scripture.  Is the ‘day’ actually a day?  It isn’t unclear--it is crystal clear that it is a day.  But that’s hard to swallow.  So you never get past the first verse of Genesis without declaring on whether you submit to Scripture being God’s Word.  You either accept it or reject it--but you don’t have the right to alter it by changing the meaning beyond what is clearly before you.  There are times when the literal meaning is not the meaning—such as hyperboles, anthropomorphisms, prophecies, poetry, idioms—but God wouldn’t start the Bible out in fuzzy words, and none of the examples I just gave are implied in Genesis.  So you must fall back on a literal day.
Flat out, there is no evolution in Genesis 1, 2, or 3—or anywhere else in the Bible. Our God is a God of truth, and of unbelievable power and knowledge.  In all the debates on inerrancy of original Scripture being passed down accurately or with multiple errors, the archeology over the centuries hasn’t dented one thing of any real importance being in error—and no scholar has suggested that translations of Genesis 1-3 have been altered any over the millennia.  So, we’re faced with those words being the words God wanted to tell us. Do we believe that God created ex nihilo, out of nothing?  But evolution says something came out of nothing.  That requires more faith than belief in God.  Those that would argue that ‘God used evolution’ have no Scripture to stand on—only ‘science,’ so called.  Which would you choose?  The current word of science?  Or the Word from God?
 Keep one important thing in mind as you consider:  “Creation science” is an oxymoron (note: meaning, words that have opposite meanings, and can’t go together).  Science is a study of natural law; Creation is supernatural.  No scientific method has the tools to study Creation. Scientists are supposed to rely on observable repetition. But the only one who knows how Creation happened is the One Who was there—God.  So a critical proof of science—‘observation’—has nothing to say. So when people say, ‘Don’t we have to apply science to the Genesis account?’  The fact is, you can’t apply science to a miracle.  So, you Christians out there, you don’t have to apply scientific methodology to explain Creation.  You can’t.  Because all science is based on observation, and verification by repetition.  But Creation has no observers, can’t be verified and isn’t repeated.  It cannot be described by any predictables that science are used to.
 So you can believe God, Who always tells the truth, or you can believe Charles Darwin.  He’s pretty convincing, apparently, because 99% of the universities are Darwinian in their "science" department.  Of the National Science Academy members who were self-described atheists, 100% of them believed in evolution.  It is our belief that they backed into atheism from how they interpreted biology to suit their own needs.
 You should know that moving from Biblical Creation to Darwin is apostasy—a defection from the Christian faith. And a bad eternal ending for its professants. Take a look at other people who move away from the Bible to teach other ‘acceptable’ doctrines--like Karl Marx (founder of socialism and communism), and John Dewey (founder of secular humanism).  Though Darwin was later than these other two men who did everything they could to shred Christianity, his theories were, like theirs, a way to explain the universe without God.  Apostate scientists looking for pseudo reasons to reject Christianity and God finally found an acceptable theory in Darwin. It’s what they want. If God can be separated from origins, then we could be separated from God; and if we could be separated from God, then we don’t have to worry about sin, and guilt, and judgement—and we’re free to do whatever we want.  So evolution is not a logical door that you enter and accept it; no, you back into it amorally (or immorally) because you want to get rid of God, and do whatever sin you want.
That is the baggage you’re accepting with Darwin.  Here’s some more baggage:  He believed in eugenics and even genocide (Editor’s note: see my blog on Margaret Sanger). Historians say he was a sadist and took great enjoyment in torturing and killing animals as a child.  He loved to kill birds by pounding on their heads with a hammer. Grown up, he carried on one voyage several guns, and hoped that he might be able to ‘kill cannibals’ (his quote--of course, maybe he could tell by the shape of his target's head--science of the day--if one person had eaten someone).  As a child, he would beat puppies. Reliable historians wrote that he, as an adult, suffered from depression, agoraphobia (fear of crowds), insomnia, vision alterations, hallucinations, malaise, vertigo, shaking tachycardia, fainting spells, shortness of breath, trembling, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, muscle twitches, spasms, tremors, cramps, bloatings, headaches, nervous exhaustion, skin blisters, tinnitus, sensations of loss of consciousness, and fear of impending death!  So said his doctors. I suspect he had more than a little guilt.  For assaulting God!  Now if you want to pick Darwin for your hermeneutical genius to interpret Genesis, you just need to know that. And yet, his book has redefined the worldview. But those who believe in it are using faith—because no one has an explanation for the Very Beginning.
 But as I proved before, you can apply it here too:  Creation had no observable beginning; so choosing it is totally by faith. Why not believe the revelation of the Creator? He is the only one who was there. All that’s left for you is, are you going to believe Scripture, or are you not?  But don’t come and layer Charles Darwin in God’s Holy Word. “Well,” somebody says, “couldn’t God have used evolution?” That’s an irrelevant question; that’s an irritating question.  He didn’t, because He told you what He did. He said He made everything in six days.  If you really believe in the attributes of God, are you going to argue with Him?  

Turn to Job 38; Job and his friends are searching for an explanation of why God has made him sick and poor when he has served God all his life.  Here is part of God’s response to him:
 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
³ Now prepare yourself like a man;I will question you, and you shall answer Me.⁴ “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?Tell Me, if you have understanding.⁵ Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!
 God goes on like this for 4 chapters. This is His sovereignty--his mind is not our mind.  We can't begin to understand some things. This is a beatdown; poor Job— this is the count of 10, it is over.  Finally he says (Job 42),
 I have uttered what I did not understand,Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.But now my eye sees You.⁶ Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.”
 This is what the evolutionists in this country need to do. Who do we think we are, rejecting God’s Word of what He has created?
 Yes, God is sarcastic and seemingly unfeeling in Job.  But there are at least three truths we learn.  (1) God is omnipotent and His motivation is past understanding; (2) He does bless Job abundantly later in his life; and (3) Job, because of sin, is not beyond suffering in the world, as we all do.  This is supposed to motivate us to seek heaven beyond this troubled life. My point here is, questioning God is a serious situation to be in—because it shows a lack of faith in Him.  Consider Hebrews 11:3:
 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Evolution proposes that what you see was made from something else that you see.  But God’s Word says that what you see was made out of nothing.
 Some people say, “We have to accommodate science,” so they came up with Intelligent Design (ID) as a “safe” middle ground of moderation. Truth is, that way the “Christian” scientists who encourage this “cop out” so they don't have to name God to their peers. They avoid embarrassment. They don’t have the faith that God will honor them someday for standing up for Him. And without faith, we cannot please Him, as Hebrews 11:6 says. Their refusal to name God as Creator is essentially a rejection of God. They are naming an impersonal force of intelligent design--but that’s not God; He is not impersonal.  They are denying His attributes.  For the ID people, here is a word:  "lukewarm." Consider the moderation exercised by the “lukewarm” “believers” in Revelation 3:15-16:

 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. ¹⁶ So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 

What is the effect of Jesus vomiting them out of His Body?  Being out of His Body means your place for eternity is the only other location—Hell. Same place as the evolutionists, who are really trying to escape God, unless they repent. They want to avoid accountability, morality, and God’s judgment. Effectively, the ID people have the same witness as the evolutionists.  Please go all the way with Christ. A president of an international Christian denomination was sent a question on his organization’s beliefs on Creation.  His response:

 The organization takes no stand on creation, avoiding such secondary issues; our efforts are designed to bring people together, based on the historically essential doctrines of orthodoxy. Creation falls into the category of non-essentials like spiritual gifts, eternal security, and the rapture.
 Amazing response…secondary issue?  So it doesn’t matter how life started (or how it ends, for these guys). These are not ‘secondary;’ they are primary.  Clearly by the ‘list of avoidables,’ this leader hates controversy. Here’s a simple test if you want to know who to donate to:  You want to know about whether a ministry truly stands up for the Bible?  Just call the head of the ministry and ask:  “Do you believe in a 6-day Creation as revealed in Genesis?”  If they say, “no,” then they don’t believe Scripture there, and they may also have other areas they feel like backing away from (or will in the future).  Our answer to Genesis 1 and 2 also reveals our attitude toward Scripture everywhere else.  But this amounts to judging God on what we like and what we don’t like in His Word.  (Ed. Note:  I have another blog on this idea). If we allow the culture to win over Christians on Genesis, then the culture can win over the Bible anywhere else. A few years ago there was a report done by the Christian Coalition who had polled 105 “Christian” colleges on the subject of Creation, among others. Only 5 believed in the literal Genesis account! In God’s plan of events, Creation is a primary issue in the Gospel.  I Corinthians 15:22 tie them together:

 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 

Adam and Christ—the first and the last—the created and the Creator--are also explained in Paul’s Gospel teachings in Romans as well as other New Testament Scriptures.  These comparisons of Adam and Christ are important salvation opposites.  Consider belief in Christ a "restart" button--since you are born again (John 3), and a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17), you get to start over, repenting from the old ties to the world, and live a righteous life.
 What is the purpose of Creation—for us?  It glorifies God for His creation power.  The comparison of Adam and Christ points to God’s redemptive purpose; God is gathering a bride for His Son. God determined Redemption before the world began.  Then He performed Creation.  While we’re on earth, we know we are accountable to God.  We have forgiveness for our sins.  We are the Church, to display His grace and mercy, His compassion and kindness.  A redeemed humanity will glorify God and Jesus Christ forever. 

Let Us Give Thanks

In 1863, President Lincoln set Thanksgiving as an Official Day for the Nation.  This speech was written by Secretary of State William Seward:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity… no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

But he wasn’t the first president to call for a day of thanksgiving to God. Here is George Washington’s speech in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness…for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Of course, there are many great verses thanking God in His Word. Here are a few:

• Psalm 95:2-3
Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.

1 Corinthians 1:4-5
I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--
• Ephesians 1:15-16
For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
• 1 Timothy 4:4-5
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
• 1 Chronicles 16:34
Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
• Psalm 7:17
I will give thanks to the LORD because of his righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
• Psalm 28:7
The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.
• Psalm 100:4
Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name.
• Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
• Jeremiah 33:11
the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD, saying, "Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, for the LORD is good; his love endures forever." For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,' says the LORD.
• Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:18
give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

It's About That Gallup Poll

The latest Gallup survey (May 7, 2017) makes sad reading:  Only 24% of Americans believe the Bible is the “actual Word of God, to be taken literally.”  This compares to 37% in 1984.  This is the lowest number for this category in the 40-year history of Gallup polling.  Since the number is even lower for college grads (only 13%) and the young (only 12%), we will continue on this downward path, except for revival, for a very long time. 

These miserable numbers are confirmed at the other end of the poll:  The skeptics.  Those who believe the Bible is “fables, history, moral precepts recorded by man” went from 15% in 2005 to 26% in 2017, in only a 12 year period. 

But there is a third option that Gallup included—what some analysts are calling a “medium” view (and we all love to avoid the extremes, right?)  Those who believe the Bible is “inspired by God, but not all of which are to be taken literally” are recently 47%.  This has remained fairly stable through the years.  Gallup’s commentary puts a rosy image to all this data, by saying, when you combine 24% literal+47% medium, ”thus 71% continue to believe the Bible is a holy document.” 

Well, I beg to differ.  Let's focus on the 47% “medium” folks.  When people say the Bible is “not all to be taken literally,” they’re really saying that they reserve the right to disbelieve the Bible when it suits them.  For instance, they believe the Lord’s Prayer is inspired, and may have memorized it, or sang it, or heard many sermons on it; but does Matthew 5:31-32 inspire them the same way?  It records Jesus saying:

 “Furthermore it has been said (Deut. 24:1), ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³² But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

This would stop most “Christian” divorce lawsuits cold—if Jesus’ command were believed. But this Scripture clearly doesn’t stop anybody from ignoring it, since divorce rates among those who call themselves “Christian” are as high as those who are of other faiths--or no faith.  This recent data is from Barna Group Research, a Christian poll-taker.  However, Barna takes great pains to point out that regular churchgoers have a lower rate of divorce than the “nominal” ones that just call themselves “Christian” and do not attend church regularly. 

Well, that’s exactly my point.  There are lots of people who think they are Christians, tell people they’re Christians when it suits them, but they think they don’t have to obey Scriptural commands when it doesn’t suit them; they cherry-pick Bible verses for their moral structure.  The truth is, they are under serious deception. These “medium” believers are more than likely not Christians at all. 

It’s fairly easy to prove that last audacious statement Scripturally.       

Let’s start with Jesus, who claimed to be God.  John 10:30-33 says that:

 I and My Father are one.” ³¹ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. ³² Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”³³ The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

 Jesus, who indeed was God, believed the Bible was the literal word of God:  In John 10:35, He said “the Scripture cannot be broken.”  He asserted the literal inspiration of Genesis, despite the “fantastic” stories of God’s creation, and its opposition to evolution.  He spoke of Jonah as a real person--agreeing that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish and being vomited out alive three days later.  So, if the God-man, Jesus, believes every word, it’s obvious that we, His disciples--if we really fit the definition of "disciples"--should as well. If we "cherry pick" Scripture, we deny its rule over our lives.  Thus, we don't believe Jesus was telling the truth about it being the Word of God.  If you think you can deviate from God on something as important as divorce doctrine, you are not His follower.  So, you are not a Christian.  Unless you sincerely repent of considering divorce, or whatever Scripture you "don't like."

So, you “medium” folks, if you say that not all Scriptures are literally inspired, aren’t you calling Jesus a liar?  Can you call God a liar?  Of course, the traditional escape that people do here, is to say that we don’t have the original inerrant Bible, and man has made copies of copies, and we all know what happens, right?—errors creep in.  Well, here’s the thing.  If you believe that God lovingly gave His gospel, showing the way to get to heaven, why on earth would He allow errors to distort the gospel, where people reading it-- carefully--because of "errors," miss out on the heaven-trip?  It makes no sense that He would allow that to happen.  So we have to conclude that the commandments of Christ, and the way to heaven, did not get distorted.  God loves us too much to allow the way to heaven to become ill-lit.

We also have to consider the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of portions of 37 of the 39 Old Testament books discovered in 1947.  They were written 1,000 years older than any previously in our existence--and we find, despite the passage of a millennium, they are identical in pretty much every sentence, to modern translation. Differences are mostly only a few unimportant prepositions.  The original Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was probably written only 100 years before the Scrolls were written.   

Well, you may say, "We don't intentionally call Jesus a liar.  Some Scriptural doctrines are just old-culture. We have to guess about modifying Scripture slightly for current culture.  That should be safe; after all, He’s got your back by giving sincere seekers a pass; He knows their intentions to do good, right?”  Well, where does it say in Scripture that “good intentions” mean anything?  It doesn’t.  As I have written in several other blogs, the way to heaven is to form a relationship, an abiding with Jesus through (1) repentance of sin and (2) belief in Him and His reconciliation for our sin--then (3) daily, through reading Scripture and applying His commands, and asking the Holy Spirit to help me change.  True belief involves trust in His decisions for your life, which never change like sinful culture does.  After all, if you’re saved, He is the sovereign Lord of your life, who loves you, and His wisdom exceeds ours for what's best for our lives.  

His commands, unlike what skeptics accuse, are not unclear.  The above command on divorce is crystal in what it expects.  You don’t want to be one of those folks who “made a decision for Christ” simply as a “fire insurance from hell,” then live life making your own decisions about what is moral and acceptable, and what is not—that makes your decision to “follow Christ” a meaningless blink in time.  Catch yourself before thinking, “This Scripture I like, that Scripture I don’t like.”  I would think that our God, who is jealous of idolatry, or letting anything get in the way of His being close to you—would have a problem of you setting yourself on His throne and pushing Him out so you can make final decisions on your own morality.

So I’m saying, unlike Gallup, that it's not true that 71% of Americans regard the Bible as a “holy document,” if you consider the real meaning of “holy.”  No, I’m saying that only 24% truly consider following Scripture totally, and have faith that all its commands are good for them—because they were ALL given by a God who loves us more than our moms do.  The other 76% are more than likely not Christian, because they are not standing up for God when it's inconvenient, rejecting His word at critical decisions.  I’m saying that a huge number of people (maybe even close to 47% of the sentient population) who call themselves “Christian” are not really Christian--they have deceived themselves. 

What proof do I have for asserting that all this self-deception is going on?  Well, in another blog, “Most Americans are Not Saved,” I prove, using Scripture, that it is a statistical impossibility that anywhere near all the people who claim to be Christian are truly Christians. I also prove it on the basis of the above-stated fact that those who call themselves “Christian” have the same rate of divorce as non-Christians. I also prove it on the basis that we haven’t rescinded Roe v. Wade after 46 years of its terrorizing innocent babies, causing 60 million—60 million!—deaths of human life in America.  It’s horrible to think of what God will do to our country.  This is ten times the Holocaust.  Science is clear—that baby is a separate human being—yet we allow this lethal disgusting belief that “I get the say over my own body.”  It’s convenient, but it’s totally non-Scripture—and non-scientific.  IF we actually had 71% Christians who truly respected the Bible, this overwhelming majority would lead to huge differences in voting for Congressmen and women, and there would be huge protests by Christians in outrage and fear of what God could do to us.  And judges would be moved to repeal Roe v. Wade.  If we’d saved most of those 60 million little ones, I can’t even imagine about how God would have blessed us.    

I can also prove my assertion on the basis of our “Christian” teenagers, who indulge in pornography and premarital sex, otherwise known as fornication.  This is a raging problem, so youth ministers tell us.  They’re not respecting Scripture either.  They think that their “decision for Christ” will get them to heaven, but they seem to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture like I Corinthians 6:9b-10:

Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

“Fornicators” includes 'way too many of our young people.  Verses in Ephesians 5:5-6, and Revelation 21:8, mentioning “sexually immoral,” echo the same end-result of being turned away from heaven.  The “escape from hell clause,” thank God, is that if you truly repent from these things, and cease indulging in them, and truly follow Christ as your Lord, you can be on the heaven-bound path again. But doing it, repenting, then doing it again—that’s not repentance, and that’s not following Christ.  You’ve deceived yourself again.

Finally, I can prove my assertion by referring to how Christ highlighted self-deception in Scripture.  Listen to His words in Matthew 7:21-23: 

   “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

These verses assert that 'doing church work' is not the key to heaven; too many use His name, and then, in secret, “practice lawlessness”—i.e., still form their moral structure on their own when the chips are down.  Yes, I 'have to' get an abortion; yes, I will get a divorce.  The Bible is not the best way for my life here; I do not have to follow it “literally.”  Not in this case, they say.  I’ll follow it most of my life.  Thus, some murder a baby, or some murder a marriage.  And they go to church!  And people pray for them, that “God will guide you in your crisis.”  Well, does any of these searching souls realize that God has already guided them in His Word?  If someone wants to be embarrassed out of a prayer group, all you have to do is quote Scripture and take away their deception.  I remember my “Young Marrieds” Sunday School group.  Teacher was really up on future events in Scripture.  Turned out that every single couple in that group—except my lovely wife and I—got divorces.  Their reasons were almost always off the Scriptural acceptance map.  They all felt that they were saved, but maybe they’d “lose a reward” when they go to heaven.  Well, they’re part of the pathetic 47% “medium” literalists.      

What these people need is a hot seat, put there by a preacher who isn’t afraid to heat up the sanctuary with hot Scriptures—which nobody does anymore in the ‘burbs.  The Dangers of Hell is not a top-10 sermon, but using it on occasion, you can get more souls in heaven by some inoculations now and then.  All you folks with the gift of evangelism:  Preach it; don’t let those people get away still deceived!  If you’re a preacher and never gotten anybody really angry with you, you’re not preaching all the Word.  Jesus never did a thing wrong to anybody, yet He was killed after only 3-1/2 years of giving them the blunt truth—He spoke of both God’s love and God’s “other side” of wrath on those who formed their own moral structures, distorting His Word. The way things are now, if you want to be honest, we have to warn you:Are you ready to be treated the same as the Master?  Ready to suffer some persecution?    As goes the teacher, so goes the students, as Jesus said. 

Pastors may say, “Well, I’m persecuted—my people ignore my sermon advice and fight over petty things.”  That’s not persecution—that means you have a bunch of baby "Christians," who are possibly not even saved at all.  You fed them milk, milk, milk.  Bland, bland, bland.  Make the sanctuary a boot camp.  Slap some sense with some "tough love" Scriptures; maybe they’ll eventually march together and accomplish things that the church should accomplish.  Such as living their lives for others, being humble and sacrificial.  You should be giving them meat.  Make them grow up.   

I guess you can tell that I’m tired of “medium” Christians and medium pastors.  Oh, yeah, I can’t resist laying down one more Scripture: What Jesus said about people that are neither hot nor cold—i.e., “medium,” or lukewarm.  Revelation 3:15b-17:

I could wish you were cold or hot. ¹⁶ So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I will vomit you out of My mouth. ¹⁷ Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—

In truth, most of those “medium” believers, those who straddle heaven and the world—an untenable position—are there because they still had love for the world and still wanted to be called “Christian.”  In the world, maybe they accumulated comfortable assets.  But spiritually they are poorer than Bangladeshis living at the trash pits.  For the most part, they are not bound for heaven.  Maybe they thought that “God made me rich, so He must love me.” Sorry, no such rule in the New Testament.  A fantasy of your own brain.  Don’t listen to the prosperity preachers.  Follow Scripture.  God is perfectly clear there on how to get to heaven.  Only a minority of people get there.  Do you fear God enough to get out of the mediocre majority?  They’re headed down the broad path.  And you know where that goes, right (Matthew 7:13,14)?  

Infant Baptism

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, or going to a crusade.  They might hear nothing about baptism.  They might be going from church to church to find more connection, and baptism never becomes an issue for them.  Many churches, striving for what’s pragmatic to people, don’t see baptism as pragmatic, and don’t emphasize it.  But baptism in Scripture is a command.  The Great Commission is very clear at Matthew 28: 19:

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 hear the Gospel, and those that believe need to be baptized.  Peter, in the first sermon on 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 a requirement, seeing His Words spoken to individuals and to the church. 

Still, its confusion is widespread, and we have millions of 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.   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 the later Protestant 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, so 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 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 meted out for profanity, gossiping, etc.)  In Europe, nations were divided.  There were Catholic nations, and there were Protestant nations. To keep the 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, or if the family refuses, that means you would not wash out Original Sin, per church tradition (not in Scripture, by the way).  If the baby died (which sadly happened frequently), the baby could never go to heaven.  Whatever decision the state rulers said, it was backed up by the religious rulers.  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 did not ensure heaven, and decided to baptize adults who truly believed in the reconciliation of Jesus Christ.  Believer rebaptism, 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).  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 traitors.  You’re Done—if you affirm anything other than infant baptism.  In 413, the persection 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 (total 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. 

So if you came along 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 this.  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.  Believer baptism disrupted the national church, posing a threat to solidarity; the “corruption” it introduces 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 and persecute people who think differently about religion the same way.  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. No deviancy, disparity, diversion, and no heresy to weaken it.  It was likely that even Luther knew that it was not Biblical, but “practicality” reigned.  (Actually, there was no faith in God’s ability to defend the truth).  

If you’re wondering how the Reformers treated the Anabaptists, even though they were supposedly more accurate than Catholics on “how to be saved and go to heaven,” they didn’t practice Scripture too well—they hated the Anabaptists too.  Here 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.”  Thus, freedom of conscience remained unknown in Protestant Europe as well.  You want to be baptized?  We’ll put you down 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—but they too were all few in number.  The Waldensians 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.   Martin Luther originally defended the freedom of Christian conscience, but under pressure from the ruling nobles, he crumbled.  The Reformation began a new era of tribulation, tears, and blood.  God was determined that satan would never take away the truth, so war was on.  Between Catholics vs. Protestants, mainly.  Through it all, a remnant of Anabaptists endured, and morphed into the Mennonites, the Amish, the Brethren. Let’s not forget the Zwinglians (who later became Mennonites) and Baptists.  Despite their pacifist ways, they were to be flogged and banished from the cities forever (Today’s Baptists, who also follow Scripture in believer baptism, have a shorter and separate history, founded in the early 1600s). 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, we need to agree on a lot of things, but baptism is a minor detail.”  It’s not a minor detail if you’re going 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” (more than a baby could do).  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, which I mentioned before, the umbrella of protection for the family, justifying infant baptism. It’s true that a believing husband (or wife) can influence the family’s acceptance of Christianity.  But no salvation floats the kids’ way, 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:  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.

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.  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.”  Here’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 (let’s hope it’s shorter than He was in the grave) 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.  (Fiddler on the Roof comes to mind).   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 how horrible it will be 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.  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.  Which Jesus provided. 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 were 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?  Do you want to claim that only a small remnant of those baptized as babies are saved? 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.

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.) 

By the way, it is important to point out that this weak connection about circumcision does not talk about salvation, does not 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 convincingly 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).  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.  That would be a shocker.

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. This 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… 

Quoting Dr. MacArthur, ‘It says “Baptize them, because they’re promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.”’  Of all things, Luther calls this baptism a “bath of regeneration.”  Considering how this is the opposite of faith, the opposite of Scripture, how much it introduces confusion:  Was this man the great theologian we have all heard? He who believed in “sola Scriptura?”   (I have a blog on him elsewhere—sorry for all the ads).  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. 

Frankly, I was shocked to read how warped the Reformed theology was on this important subject, which 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 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).      

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….”  What?  How did he conclude this crazy talk?  Ah, yes: 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 in his famous TULIP acronym.  It is also called “once saved, always saved.” They actually believe God regenerates you before you accepted Him In your life.  Presumably man doesn’t have free will.  God picks who will go to heaven—and thus, unfortunately, 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.