Created in Christ Jesus for Good Works

 

Most true Christians in Ethiopia can worship freely and openly, but those who leave Islam or the traditional Ethiopian church (Orthodox) to follow Christ face opposition.  Multiple large-scale attacks during the last few years have devastated Christian communities.  Many church buildings have been destroyed.  Here is an example:  From Voice of the Martyrs, November 2021. 

Negasi grew up in a traditional Orthodox church in Ethiopia (northeast corner of Africa; it borders Sudan, just south of Egypt), but he also attended a special school to learn how to cast demons, curses, and cause people to lose their minds.  He became so proficient at witchcraft that he was honored with a title reserved for the best students.  Later, after moving to the spiritual capital of Ethiopia, he opened a pharmacy to supplement his income.  One day a customer asked him if he would heal his sister, who was seriously mentally ill—she had become a penti—a derogatory term for a biblical Christian.  Negasi could only cast his spell if she were present, but when the customer finally arrived with her. he had forgotten.  Since he had already been given half the money, the customer filed charges against him, and after a trial, he was sent to almost 4 years in prison.

As a police officer escorted Negasi to jail, they passed a group of young boys playing games with some strange coins.  Out of curiosity, Negasi asked the boys if he could have one of the coins.  When they obliged, he put their gift in his pocket.  He didn’t know it, but it would one day become a treasured keepsake. 

Negasi began to think God was punishing him for practicing witchcraft; he feared the consequences of his sins more than he feared death.  Too miserable even to eat, he went 20 days without food. Then one day he cried out to God with a broken spirit.  “I know that I am a sinner, and I don’t deserve to be in Your home with You in heaven; but if there is any place that is outside Your home for me, please allow me to go there.”

Burdened by the weight of his sins, Negasi confessed to an Ethiopian Orthodox priest at the prison, believing that confession to a priest was required for forgiveness. But he still didn’t feel any comfort. Seeking some kind of penance for his misdeeds, Negasi devoted himself to the central church teachings.  He celebrated a different saint each day, just as the church does, and checked out an Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, in the ancient language of Ge-ez.  Every time he tried to study one of its 81 books, he fell asleep—even when he wasn’t tired.  He also borrowed another Bible, with 66 books, that he found in the prison library.  That was in the native Tigrinya language, and it captivated him, and he soon noticed passages that contradicted many things that he had believed. 

Then one night, Negsi had a dream in which he was told that the salvation he was seeking is found in the Gospels.  And after a deeper study of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (which he had never read or heard anything about), he concluded that salvation is found in faith in Christ alone.  Overcome with joy, Negasi began to share this revelation with everyone he could.  During times when he was allowed to leave his cell, he walked cell to cell telling other prisoners about Christ.  He would explain as much as he could before the inmates or guards grew angry and forced him to move on.  (Note:  Ethiopia is 50% Muslim, 40% mostly Orthodox/Coptic, and 10% Animism.  “I couldn’t understand why this message was not being taught,” he said.  Negasi had no idea the Tigrinya Bible was the same one used by penti, from biblical churches in Ethiopia.  And he didn’t realize the gospel that had suddenly changed his life was the principal message of biblical churches worldwide. “I thought I was sharing something that was completely new to the world.  I became passionate about telling this message, even to the point that I forgot about my years in prison.“

Each month, some prisoners gathered to worship depictions of the angel Gabriel.  But after coming to understand the gospel, Negasi refused to join them, explaining that only God is worthy of worship.  As a result, many of the inmates threatened him, calling him a penti and a heretic.  When guards had learned that Negasi had been sharing the gospel, they ordered him to stop.  And when he refused, they transferred him to a maximum-security cell and placed shackles on his legs. 

Shortly after he was released from maximum, he met a fellow prisoner, Ephrem, who had the same religious upbringing that he had before.  But now Negasi led him to the Lord.  But when authorities learned that a second prisoner had begun sharing the gospel, they decided to take action. He was back in solitary confinement.  They sent another prisoner, named Dinaw, to check on him and bring his daily rations.  Dinaw was serving a three-year sentence for assaulting a neighbor. 

Fellow prisoners had warned Dinaw about the gospel message being shared by Negasi and Ephrem.  But as Dinaw brought his daily meals to solitary, he became friends with Negasi and Ephrem.  Although Dinaw wanted to follow Jesus, he feared the repercussions.  “When persecution comes, I will not stand with you; we are all suffering in prison, but you are suffering even more.”  Negasi encouraged Dinaw with passages from Romans 8 and John 16, explaining that trials, tribulation, and persecution are part of following Jesus Christ.  And after gaining a better understanding of what it means to be His disciple, Dinaw placed his faith in Him. 

Some of Dinaw’s relatives who worked as local police officers soon reported his “heretical” faith to his father, who decided to gather his brothers and friends and go have a talk with him.  “Did you become a penti?” they asked Dinaw.  He replied, “I have given my life to Jesus.”  His father was so angry that he wrote a letter to the police chief, urging him to keep his son behind bars beyond his eligibility for release.  When guards told Dinaw about his father’s letter, his response surprised them. “I like prison; I can read my Bible every day here, so don’t worry about that.” 

Some local biblical pastors came to visit, and opened Negasi’s eyes that his beliefs were biblical Christian, and there were many more believers like him.  The pastors discipled the three, and before long, 15 prisoners came to faith in Christ. 

After release, the three men soon found out that following Christ is more difficult outside prison than behind bars.  When Negasi’s wife learned of his faithfulness to God, she divorced him and took their daughter with her.  And Dinaw, from a small village, had no one to share his faith with, and couldn’t fit in.  He returned to his home village, where he faced continual threats.  They found out that as biblical Christians have shared the gospel and planted churches in the north of Ethiopia, some members of the Ethiopian Orthodox church carried out violent attacks against them.  And in some cases, traditional Orthodox have sided with Muslims against the biblical Christians, considering them a common enemy. 

About 18 months after Dinaw returned home, the threats turned to violent persecution against his family.  One night when he was sleeping in a field near his house, to care for one of his cows, a group of villagers came to his home.  They tied the door shut from the outside with rope, trapping Dinaw’s wife and children inside as they slept.  Dinaw awoke to the smell of smoke and the sight of his house burning a few hundred yards away.  After running home, he untied the rope, and got his family out just in time.  They lived in a wood wall and a tarp, with no money, until Voice of the Martyrs heard of them and arrived, and rebuilt their home two years ago. 

Despite the challenges, all three men have remained firm in faith.  And Dinaw, who once resisted following Christ, now accepts persecution as integral to the Christian faith.  As he says, “I knew the Lord led me to sleep next to my cows, to be able to save my family. As I watched my house burned, the story of Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego came to my mind.  They were asked like me, to worship another god, and I said no.  So they tried to convince me with fire.  But our real home is in heaven. They burned my earthly house, but my heart is not full of hatred, and I pray for them.” When asked why he has stayed in his village, under continual threat of death, Dinaw explained that he has no fear of death.  “My life belongs to God, and I believe He put me here where He is working.  If He allows me to be killed, I am ready to die.” When Negasi reflects on the past few years, he, too, sees how God has worked in his life.  Upon his release from prison, the guards returned all of his original belongings.  And in the pocket of his clothing, he found the coin that the boys had given him on his way to jail.  On one side of the coin was printed “John 3:16,” and the words “Those who have the Lord Jesus have eternal life.”  On the other side of the coin was the question, “Where is your eternal home?”   He says, “I thank God that He put me in prison for a purpose.”  Negasi is at a Bible college and hopes to become a full-time pastor.  He has paid back all the money he owed the man who filed charges against him, and they are now good friends.  Negasi hopes that he will become a believer soon. “You are my everlasting good person because you put me in prison; I will not forget you, because you helped me find eternal life.”

No Follow Through, No Goal

 

One debate that still matters among Christians:  Are we saved by faith alone, or are works necessary to be saved?  There is no one better than Dr R.C. Sproul to discuss this.  Here are his thoughts to a small group of seminary students. I’m giving you pretty much word for word on the subject.  He begins with the battle between Catholics and Martin Luther.  Then, in seeming defense of Catholics, he quotes James 2:21-24:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Here we have the explicit statement in sacred Scripture that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. You would think that that single verse would be the crushing blow to the article that Luther said was the article upon which the church stands or falls, as he believed it: faith alone.

So how do we reconcile what Paul teaches in Romans with what James teaches here?

(Let me interject God’s Word in Romans 4:1-5, so you can compare with James above, and get a clearer idea of this apparent problem): 

 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? ² For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Note:  see Genesis 15:6) ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted ^[c]as grace but as debt. ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Bank to Dr. Sproul:

Some people think that it (the reconciliation of these two verses, one vaunting works, the other relying on faith) is an impossible task, that they are simply irreconcilable.  Some feel that James wrote later, after he read Paul, in an attempt to refute him.  Or Paul was trying to refute James.  This is beneath the dignity of God’s perfect Word to even discuss this.  Classic orthodoxy would say that neither one of them was trying to refute the other, and that the two positions are not contradictory, though on the surface they seem to be.  The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that both James and Paul use the same Greek word here for justification.  The matter becomes even more severe when we see that both of them have the same person that they use as Exhibit A to prove their point: Abraham. 

Paul says that Abraham was counted righteous before he had done any works.  So Paul has Abraham justified in Chapter 15 of Genesis. But James does not have Abraham justified until his quote from Genesis in Chapter 22, where he offers his son Isaac on the altar. A work.

This is one of the things that made Luther question the canonicity of James, calling it “an epistle of straw.”  But he later repented of that judgment.  Many scholars since have charged that Luther did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.  But he is quoted as saying “The Scripture never errs.” He was “simply” questioning if James should be included in the inerrant Bible.

By way of solution, as it turns out, there is more than one meaning for the term ‘justification.’ Recall Jesus saying that “wisdom is justified by her children.”  (Luke 7:35).  Obviously, in context, He did not mean that “wisdom” is a person, or that it was reconciled to a holy God with an imputed righteousness.  He is saying, if it is true wisdom, it is shown by its fruit.  Thus, the meaning of “justified” in this case is to demonstrate or to manifest the truth of something.  The term has a second meaning:  it can be used to prove the truth of a claim. 

It would help if you find out “what problem is the apostle trying to solve, and why?” What were the issues of Paul and James?  For James, we get an idea in James 2:14-17:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can (some versions add “that”) faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? ¹⁷ Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James is dealing with the people who make a profession of faith, but do not manifest any fruit of it.  In our day and age, we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in America who have made professions, but have never demonstrated the reality of the faith they claim to possess. That is James’ concern.

But that’s not the question Paul is asking: “How can an unjust person stand in the presence of a just and holy God?”  His concern for justification is before God, and that is where he says that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law.  James is asking, “what about the person who professes faith, but has no evidence of it?”  If someone has faith but does not have works, can that faith save him? He concludes that faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.  He is making a distinction between dead faith and faith that is alive. 

When Luther was challenged about the need for works, a question asked of him was, “Does that mean we can just believe and live however we want to?” Paul answers that question, “May God forbid!” (Romans 6:15).  Luther says, “Justification is by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.”  The faith that justifies, he said, is a living faith.  And you know it is alive when it manifests itself in the fruit of obedience.  That’s the work aspect of it.  If we say, “I have faith,” how do you know?  Can anybody read my heart?  The only way you can evaluate the truth of my claim is to see if I manifest it in my life.  “By their fruits ye shall know them.”  (Matthew 7:20).  And even then we can fool people with rotten fruit that is phony fruit. But on the other hand, how long does God have to wait before He knows that my profession of faith is genuine?  He does not have to wait 7 chapters to see evidence.  He knows my heart is genuine or not.  And so I think it is critical in answering this problem of reconciling theses verses; we see that even though both James and Paul appealed to Abraham to make their case, they appealed to Abraham at different times in his life.  Paul makes his point that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law by pointing to Chapter 15, when Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness.  James makes his case that Abraham is justified by works by pointing to Chapter 22.  Is he talking about Abraham being justified in the sight of God?  Or is he saying that Abraham is being justified in the sight of men?  He says, “if a man says he has faith, but not works, can that faith save him?”  His answer is ‘No.’ The only faith that saves is not a dead faith, but a living faith.  If it is a living faith, it will certainly be made manifest by works.  So Abraham is authenticating his claim of faith in Chapter 22.  Just as we claim to have faith, we have to show forth that faith by our works. 

Thus Dr. Sproul does a great job of explaining the seeming irreconcilability of these two sections of verses.  But something else bugs me, and Dr. Sproul alluded to it. Those of you old enough, do you remember how, in the Billy Graham crusades, people got saved?  By listening to “Just As I Am,” and walking down the aisle.  What we don’t see on TV is, these folks got a brief connection, got a little handbook, and went home.  There was little follow-up to even figure out what church they ended up at, if any.  Hard data was done by others, however.  In one study, it shows that most of the people going forward were active churchgoers, and already Christian. They were mostly rededicating their lives.  In another case, Baptist churches did an intense survey after a California crusade.  This showed paltry numbers of people actually saved.

It is claimed that Graham’s methods follow those by Charles Finney, a 19^th century evangelist, who changed evangelism from “conversion” to “easy decisionism,” and, some say, wrecked it.  Ray Comfort, a lifelong evangelist, does follow up on people saved, does speak on the Ten Commandments to convince people of the depth of their sin, and talks about Judgment Day and repentance. He is convinced that, today, over 80% of those supposedly saved fail to follow up with any evidence of changed lives.

All this leads to a likely conclusion:  Among the non-Christian respondents who go forward are thousands of people who think that they are saved. But they did not change their lives, nor did Dr. Sproul’s follow-up works even get mentioned.  Thus, they were unconverted. This has an unfortunate opposite effect: it makes these multitudes of people extremely hard to evangelize again; they’ve convinced themselves that they’re already saved, and will shrug off any effort to unconvince them. Thus, they end up hardened against real conversion Their “insurance policy” is in. A one-off confession, a walk down front, did it.

Poll numbers echo the story of their certainty: While 72% of Americans believe in heaven as a place where people “who live a good life” go, and while the majority of Americans believe in hell, only 4% believe they will go there.  Thus, a great number of Americans hold this, shall we call it, smug conclusion that heaven is their endgame.  But Jesus said “few” would go to heaven (Matthew 7:13-14).  Maybe 6-10% of everybody is the definition of few.  You may question that, but I have proof below.  I suspect most Americans—yes, most—will be like Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7:20-23:

By their fruits you will know them ²¹ “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!’

What is my proof that Americans do not respect God’s rules, and are thus lawless?  Just to cite a few:  First, a majority of Americans believe that abortion is necessary.  (After all, we haven’t eliminated it, after 48 years).  From the Guttmacher Institute, 2014:  17% of abortion patients identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant, and 24% as Catholic.  That’s 54%.  Secondly, only 47% of Americans belong to or are members of a church (that study was done before Covid). Thirdly, Americans’ ignorance of the Bible is astonishing: In a Pew Research study of 2019, a multiple-choice question was posed: “Who preached the Sermon on the Mount?”  Choices were:  John, Paul, Peter, and Jesus.  49% got the wrong answer! Fourthly, we allow ignorant pastors to preach to us: according to a Cultural Research Center 2020 study, 49% of pastors “do not have a Biblical worldview.” 

My point in all this is, Americans blindly speculate on the path to heaven, when the way is clearly pointed out in Scripture.  But they don’t want to read Scripture, because they would have to confront their sin and a holy God. They are comfortable with their lives in the world, and their sin. So they all make up their own mind about what gets them to heaven.  They also make God whatever their minds want to see in Him—usually, a forgiving, grandpa sort.  Some believe that their church works will get them to heaven, or they believe that their wealth proves that God loves them eternally, as long as they don’t do anything really bad.  Or they believe that their one-off confession, or their infant baptism, will do the job.  They have no idea of the nuances of Dr. Sproul about works—instead, they perceived from their pastors, perhaps, that assurance of heaven was an easy task. God will make my life easier if I believe in Jesus. They don’t know about the holiness or fear of God, and how they deserved hell.  The demons believe in Jesus, and where will they go? (James 2:19).

The Bible puts forth the plan of salvation quite differently than all this speculation: As Dr. Sproul suggested, we are saved by living faith, or faith that abides in Jesus Christ.  Ponder Jesus’ words in John 15:5-6:

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and a l they are burned.

To put it bluntly, as the verses say, we are burned in hell unless we abide in Jesus.  What is “abiding in Jesus?” If it’s the key to avoiding hell, it’s rather important.  It’s not works, as we typically imagine them; it’s fruit.  Fruit will result in good works.  The Bible has a definition of fruit.  And obedience.  These are all required stuff.  It’s a long-term relationship, too.  That’s vitally important; none of these “one-off” ideas. 

It’s the subject of another paper, too. I have blogs on the subject.

I’m simply writing this to set you worried about whether you can be sure of heaven.  Do you speak, with your voice or with your mind, with Jesus daily?  Do you read His Word, His laws, for direction in your life daily?  You should be seeking Scripture on the whole subject, with an open heart.  As the Word says in II Corinthians 13:5:

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves…unless indeed you are disqualified.

May God bless you as you seek more of Him.

It's About That Gallup Poll

 A recent 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, more dedicated 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 my 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 repent of doing 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 scroll previously discovered--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, or a word that we have not seen before (Scriptural scholars have determined the exact meaning of all but about 50 Greek words, I read recently.  In almost all cases, the meaning of the word can be reliably guessed at, given the surrounding sentences.)

The original Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was probably written only 100 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written; there have been no questions about definitions.  It's only the modern Bible commentators, would you believe, that play around with the word "day" in Genesis, or the word "big fish" in the Jonah story.  (Or the words "sons of God" in Genesis 6--read another blog, using DNA in the heading, for more on that intriguing story.)

Well, you may say, "We don't intentionally call Jesus a liar.  Some Scriptural doctrines are just old-culture. We have to modify 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,” when the results are evil, mean anything?  It doesn’t.  Does the traffic cop give you a pass?  No, your "good intentions" will come across as a whine. 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.  (Frankly, there are other loopholes--if you, as a wife, are in genuine fear for your life, God will give you a pass.  But none of this "we do not agree" stuff.)  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” meaningless.  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. Surprise in the judgment day awaits them.

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 48 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 be motivated to do something--there would be huge protests by Christians in outrage and fear of what God could do to us as a nation.  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.  Maybe 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)?

The Bad News You Should Know

 

Some churches (fewer all the time) don't like the phrase “getting saved.”  Let’s look at that phrase.  First question:  What is it we want people saved from?  The answer to that question, per Scripture is:  We want people saved from eternal punishment, punishment that never ends.  We’re speaking of conscious life in a body,  but suited for everlasting punishment.  The Bible speaks of that as occurring in a place that we know is hell.  It comes from the Greek word “gehenna.”  The Book of Revelation calls this the Lake of Fire where people are punished and tormented forever. 

In all honesty, pastors are distancing themselves from the reality of hell.  And we do it too.  We don't want to think about it.  For most pastors in today’s sermons, such a negative topic is kryptonite—when the truth is, it ought to be the first thing we talk about when the subject is the Gospel, the good news of how to be saved from hell.  You should know that the doctrine of hell is still in the thinking of our culture, when the subject is raised.  A 2016 survey said that 64% of Americans believe in hell (down from 5 years before, when 75% believed in it).  Real Christianity teaches it, because it's brought up many times by Jesus in the Bible.  However, of those 64%, only 4% believe that there is any chance that THEY will go there. So, hell is for someone else, not me, brother. Well, that’s a problem.  Jesus said that the majority of people will go to hell.  He said only a few would experience life, eternal life.

Here's His quote, in Matthew 7:13-14. "Destruction" speaks of hell, "life" speaks of heaven.

 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. ¹⁴ Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Was Jesus lying?  No. Was He exaggerating, to scare us into thinking about it?  No, that would be deception.  He is The Truth, as John 14:6 says.  The fact that most people don't personally consider this is our self-deception, not His.  Jeremiah 17:9 says:

“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Consider Isa. 55::8-9

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
⁹ “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

 So, we’ve gotten one point across (people still believe there is a hell), but we haven’t gotten the most important point across that most people are headed there and need to take steps to avoid it. 

Here’s another reason why most of us don’t think about hell, the punishment for sin:  We live in a world where sin is freely done.  Sin is so much a part of our culture that most sins are accepted in society.  For instance, I just read an article in a reputable newspaper that a feminist author was ostracized by other feminists, largely because she spoke against legalizing prostitution nationwide.  Also, we don’t seem to have any real problem with fornication (premarital sex); it's on major TV shows regularly, and I haven't even heard my conservative Christian friends complain about it.  Adultery is even expected among the upper classes; and nobody is showing much shock against homosexuality being normalized on TV--you know that it's socially acceptable when advertisers will allow it to run.  We are not often frowned upon if we perjure in court--it's for "racial benefit"--nor will any student complain if a fellow student asks them for their paper to copy, so high school and college cheating is OK, for most.  And robbery, such as on taxes—we rationalize it by saying, "I don't like what the government is spending it on."  Or, if we’re poor, “we’re oppressed, and we deserve it.”  And government supports gambling, which is the downfall of more people every year—and which hurts the poor the most.  Nobody complains about that.  And let’s not forget the elephant in the room--murder of the innocents, or abortion.  Most of us “Christians” don't get overexcited about legalized murder.  We are under a gullible assumption that if we elect the right politician, he will get it straightened out.  Counting on a politician?  That'll go well with Jesus on judgement day.  The problem is, we don't believe the Bible.  The Bible clearly shows that lives are sacred from the moment of conception.  But 44% of Protestants believe (April 2021 poll by Pew) abortion should be legal in all or most cases.  And a majority of Catholics don't follow the Pope; 55% of Catholics feel it should be legal.  So here we are, killing where convenient and ignoring God.  

Yes, the Bible is very much against all these sins.  So we’re not only used to sinning, but we’re very comfortable with sin—society has very few consequences that it places on people for sin.  So, there is now evidently a warped sense of good and evil, and a distorted understanding of justice.  Consider Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…

 Please do not appeal to favorite items in the New Testament, such as how Jesus was merciful to the adulterous woman (John 8).  Let us not forget--He said to her, “Go, and sin no more,” since He saw in her a repentance of her sin.  That repentance, or turn-around, was acceptable—not her adultery. And try reading the rest of the New Testament, to get the whole picture.

Our new definition of sin is, only if it “harms someone else.”  That’s a definition most often used by teens engaging in fornication.  It seems to be a fine definition that most people are guided by.  But that is applied with bias—in an abortion, you’re still doing murder of a life—who is, after all, “someone else” as all science acknowledges. 

A parent who talks with their child on (sexual) protection has already given up on their morality.  And the child knows it.  To say, “Well, I’ve got to tell her she must only have sex with someone she loves” is totally ignoring God’s parameters about sex. And do they know what real love is?  To say, “Well, he/she’s already doing it, so I have to teach her this” is to again give up on their morality.  You’re teaching them that the culture wins, God loses.  Does that sound like an acceptable article of faith, if they profess to be a Christian?    

Consider these cold facts:  First of all, today’s young females will have, on average, three or so sexual partners before marriage, so say surveys.  Secondly, there is a distinct correlation between, shall we call it, the “promiscuity rates” and the rates of later divorce.  As the National Survey of Family Growth points out in 2013, women with 10 or more sexual partners were more likely to later divorce; women with 3-9 partners were less likely, and women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to later divorce.  Thus, data proves that fornication is bad—at least if you consider that the later divorce is bad. 

I guess I can’t assume even that anymore. More men's groups, and this is grudgingly acceptable by more women, are following some form of Darwin's "we are animal," hypothesis, so they are openly refusing monogamy--"we're not made that way."   Also, some people with too many horoscope readings, perhaps, actually say, “I thought my husband was my soulmate—but I was wrong. I must divorce him and continue my quest; only one person can make me happy.”  Or they say, “I’m different now compared to when I married.  He isn’t.  We have to part.”  Or, the worst, “I can’t even imagine one person for 40 years—it’s gotta be boring.  Divorce makes variety in life.  It makes sense.”  Even grown up, much of the population has no idea of real love. The Bible’s Greek term is for truly loving is “agape”—which means “God-love.”  Sacrifice and submission is demanded before true love can take root.  Most divorces are for selfish reasons, such as the above.

Actually, that sex survey is beside the point:  if you want souls saved (a much more important idea than current “needs,” since it’s for eternity), consider that anyone committing fornication or adultery (and that latter term includes second marriage) is in danger of heading to hell, according to I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15.  Just follow the term "sexual immorality" in Scripture.  BUT sincere repentance, belief in everything Jesus did for reconciliation, and a changed life under God’s Scriptural loving commands will change that horrible penalty that you might be under right now. 

In summary, culture is going the wrong way. We must learn to follow God's rules instead of listening to culture. When we grow up, we should learn to reject “peer pressure,” right?  Don't look for society for what's "right;"  society doesn’t have any real spiritual guidance.  Of course, if you get saved and learn about appealing to the Holy Spirit for guidance, you learn what's true, what the consequences are to stray--and you are strengthened against co-opting to cultural norms. 

If you are an evangelical Christian and are actually moved to talking to people about the consequences of sin, be prepared:  if you introduce the (Scriptural) idea that the offenders will pay in full—forever--for every sin not under the blood of Christ (another term that pastors hate to use), that idea is simply alien to most people, and that’s why we get the ridiculous 4% who feel deserving of hell (see above).  “No, God couldn’t do that to me.  I’m better than most.”  But most are ignorant of His standard for salvation, and should be high-tailing to learn it, since He is the judge, not you.  He does have wrath for sin, and He has warned us so. We haven’t bothered to read all of New Testament Scripture, which lays it all out--the frighteningly real consequences of dithering around and how important this is.  Jesus does talk a lot about the eternal consequences of sin, despite too many pastors avoiding the subject. Convincing people that there are such horrible consequences is a hard sell—especially when they believe the Bible is God’s “suggestions.”   Consider Romans 2:5—does this sound like “suggestions?”

…in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

 God will not have those around Him who still have unclean hands--who still carry their sin. But it is impossible to go through life with no sin--no sin in behavior, no sin with the lips, no sin with the mind (Jesus added that feature to sin), no (self) deception—you’re just accumulating iniquities, all of which will be confronted and judged.  You’re storing up wrath.  And you don’t wipe it all away by deliberate ignorance, by insincere repentance, or by repeating Hail Marys, or by penance.  But there is a way out—but the way out does not end with a one-time action. (I have other blogs on what salvation is, and, most importantly, not losing it, by keeping an ongoing relationship with Christ). 

The problem is, people are just so used to getting away with sin in this life that their hearts become, over time, seared of conscience and often permanently hardened. That makes it easy to self-deceive, and assume things about God’s love and eternal forgiveness; but these assumptions are based on what people imagine, what they hope, not based on God’s revelation of Himself. So cultural “truisms” about sin like “sowing the wild oats” or “let them go through a rebellious phase; they’re young” only increase the likely destination of hell. That likelihood is higher if people become well off.  They see no need for “being saved” (I have my bank account), no need for redemption, and all of what that word means.  God must love them; He let them become rich.  The Bible talks of redemption as buying someone out of the slave market.  But this is over-the-top to a cynical public.  “Buy me out of the slave market of sin?  I’m a slave?  What are you talking about?”

Now let’s talk to the nominal complacent quiet-about-my-faith Christian again--maybe this speaks of you. Imagine this metaphor:  If a man sees someone he loves walking straight at a house fire, they’re ignoring everything else, they're in some kind of foggy hallucination--tell me what that loving person will do to stop them from entering the flaming house.  Everything, I hope--especially if they are his family.  He will first get into the doomed walker's face and explain bluntly and loudly what is about to happen, in the most fervent of tones. If that doesn’t succeed in waking him, and he is still walking, he will make whatever physical obstacle he can to slow them down, or even tackling them. Is that helper crazy for extreme behavior?  No, he loves them.  He is a hero if he succeeds. But try to do anything “extreme” to rescue someone from hell (like actually talk to them fervently about hell, like you really believe it).  You’re not a hero afterwards, are you? No, people turn you off.  Nowadays, you'll be branded a kook.  But real Christians get persecuted, and we should bear that as a badge of honor, so we don’t care what they think. God talked to Ezekiel (2:3-7; 3:18-21), and made him a “watchman,” as every real Christian is today.  He told him that if he truly evangelized, and if the person didn’t change and went to hell, the blood would not be on the evangelizer’s hands.  BUT if the watchman didn’t warn him, and he went to hell, the blood would be on the evangelizer’s hands.  Did you get that?

So let me ask you, if you maintain that you are a true Christian:  What are we doing now for our loved, but unsaved family members?  Most people who actually “witness” approach someone with a light touch (you don't want to appear strange or intolerant of his non-belief), and when they get brushed off, then he/she just gives up and goes to prayer.  Such a weak witness, considering where the other party is headed. Too many of these "evangelizers" (a) assume God will let the unsaved live longer so as to accept the gospel later (no guarantee of that); or (b) assume God is grandpa-like and forgives all sin, despite our spitting in His face in rebellion; (c) assumes maybe because the lost person went to church and said he “believes” in Jesus, he’s saved—but not if there is almost no evidence of a changed life--which is a requirement for ultimate salvation; or, finally, (d) doesn’t want to connect the dots of Scripture, doesn’t want to think about it. Basically, all these excuses are because few people really truly believe in how close we are to hell, or we don’t really believe that God will actually send people to such a horrible place forever. Scripture is crystal clear otherwise.

Someday, God will brush all those assumptions aside at His seat of judgement. Once a person dies (and we don’t know when that will be, right?), there is no changing their ultimate destination. So if we know them well and do nothing, I maintain that we don’t really believe Scripture.  That is a dangerous place for you to be in, since you’re also saying you don’t believe in what God is clearly saying to us in His Word. Jesus, since He loved us, He warned us. But His love will NOT stop Him from His promise to carry out wrath to all those who reuse to have a relationship with Him. And that’s the majority of society.  Yes, even including in the U.S.  Jesus did an extreme act to make a way to save us. Now, He gives a free will choice—if a person is determined to ignore warnings, he ends up in the fire. IF we want to see friends and family saved, if we believe His Word, a real Christian’s actions in evangelism would not be reticent as it is today.  We might actually talk more frequently about hell—and in convincing tones.  I realize that's not popular, but, hey, has the lighter approach worked?  Look at society; that will tell you. 

Speaking to the nominal Christians again:  Parents should start seriously teaching their children when they are young—studies show that our moral structures are mostly formed by the time we are 11.  But parents today are convinced by the worldly-wise telling them not to be negative with kids about hell being the consequence of sin and being unsaved.  And they tell us not to make a choice about "pushing" the child to attend church or pray to Christ for guidance.  Let the child make his own choice, they say.  But Scripture says children are naturally selfish--they have to be taught to grow out of that. We think too much of ourselves already—we tend to give our kids an open path to selfishness.  To slow down the child's ego’s appetite, parents must administer significant consequences for the sins of their children.  That means spanking too—as Scripture commands it.  We’re very close to the day that if you spank your child and they are worldly-wise and call Family Services, you could be deprived of your children!  If your child is hooked on bad friends, video games, or the cell phone (now why did you give them that?), it may be a good time to pick up and move to a rural community and take away the cell phone, certain TV watching, and most video games.  "Vet" the child's friends.  Parents also substitute pets for them to take care of, and chores to do.  Choose their after-school activities carefully; tell them you want them to attend your non-judgmental family dinner most nights.  Don’t interrogate them, unless you have evidence that things are going bad; but be honest about your feelings and encourage them to express their feelings. Pray with them, not always just at bedtime. 

Be active in the school system; actually visit school a few times and ask many questions of the principal; thus pick up the moral tone.  If it’s bad, and another school is not an option, you should actively consider home schooling. Mom or dad staying home is a good thing.  Sure, you will wail about the huge loss in family income, and you may cry about the ridiculous sacrificial family budget.  But, hey, remind yourselves—how extreme will you go to get them saved?  Remember my fire illustration.  How much do you love your children?  Look to the future, which is eternal:  Treasures in heaven, not treasures on earth, right?  Were you on the rat-race saving up for their college?  Well, first, colleges, by every study you can imagine, are festering swamps of immorality and will destroy their faith. There are plenty of places to go for apprenticing for a good-paying vocation. 

Did you think to send your child to a Christian college?  Did you know that some professors in most “Christian” colleges are not trustworthy; they are skeptics on Biblical creation and inerrancy of Scripture, and will lodge questions in your child's mind about their faith. Oh, you say, my kid is smart and will avoid that.  Maybe smart, but maybe not a moral super(wo)man.  Kids, even grown kids, lie, and parents don’t ask intrusive questions—so maybe you don’t know how smart they are on the moral scale.  Well, you say, they must socialize.  You mean “acclimate,” in its dire meaning, to the immoral culture?  Try reading the Old Testament—it’s ¾ of the Bible, so God must have put it there for a reason.  He strenuously objected to the Jews mixing with the corrupt cultures surrounding them.  

Seriously, do you want to reject my radicalism, and go on like the past, and hope for different results? I’m talking of freedom, love, and connection with God.  Tell me, does the present world made you happy?  You know what the revised definition of insanity is,  don’t you?  Repeatedly living with and believing the “wisdom” coming from the same tragic culture and lack of love--and expecting different results.    

 Oh, of course.  I haven’t explained what “saved” is.  Read the New Testament a few times.  Try another blog, like my “Getting to Heaven:  Initial Salvation etc.” Actually, this paper, long as it is, has only given you the bad news.  For the Good news, see those references.  May God bless you.

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, 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.