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.

The Bad News You Must Know

Some churches (fewer all the time) believe in “being 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 resurrected, 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, we distance ourselves from that reality.  Even if we attend most churches, 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.  At least, the doctrine of hell is still in the thinking of our culture.  A 2016 survey said that 64% of Americans believe in hell (down from 5 years before, when 75% believed in it).  Christianity at least still has an influence.  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 (Matthew 7:13, 14).  He said only a few would experience life, eternal life.  We’ve gotten one point across, but we haven’t gotten our point across that most people are headed there and need to take steps to avoid it.

 Here’s 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 every imaginable sin is accepted.  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.  We don’t seem to have any real problem with fornication (premarital sex), or even adultery among the upper classes; and nobody is showing much shock against homosexuality being normalized on TV, where it affects children the most.  We are not often disciplined if we perjure, or for cheating (despite the recent college admission scandal), such as on taxes, or even stealing—if we’re poor, “we’re oppressed, and we deserve it.”  And government supports gambling, 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--casting our glance sideways over murder of the innocents.  So most of us “Christians” even grudgingly accept legalized murder.

 So we’re very used to sinning. And we’re very comfortable with sin—society has very few consequences that it places on people for sin.  Parents, if their child says that’s what they’ve done or really want to do—would rather be a homosexual advocate, a transgender advocate, or an abortion advocate, to “support” him or her, rather than speak the truth to their child to try to save their soul from hell.  Yes, the Bible is indeed against these.  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 her repentance of her sin.  That 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 for most people.  But that is applied blindly—in an abortion, you’re still doing murder of the infant—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” is to again give up on their morality.  You’re teaching them that the culture wins, God loses.  A fine article of faith.  

And consider the cold facts on fornication.  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 the, shall we call it, “promiscuity rates” and the rates of later divorce.  As the National Survey of Family Growth points out in 2013, women with 10 or more 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.  Thus, data proves that fornication is bad—at least if you consider that the later divorce is bad.  I guess I can’t assume.  Some people actually say, “I thought he was my soulmate—I made a simple error of judgment.  I must divorce him and continue my quest; only one person can make me happy.”  Or they say, “I’m different now.  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 sense.”  Even grown up, at least half the population has no idea of real love. The Bible’s Greek term is “agape”—which means “God-love.”  Sacrifice and submission is demanded.  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 headed to hell, according to I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15—they often use the broad synonym “sexual immorality.”  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.

 In summary, do not look to the society for spiritual guidance.  We’re grown up to reject “peer pressure,” aren’t we?  Society doesn’t have any real spiritual guidance.  Of course, if you and, let’s include your children, get saved and learn about appealing to the Holy Spirit for help, you don’t have to co-opt to cultural norms.

 So, let’s turn around and talk to the nominal Christian too.  If you are a real Christian and are 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, 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 you 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.  Too bad our pastors are keeping quiet on hell.  Convincing people that there are such horrible deferred 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 

Yes, barring getting truly saved, you’re not getting away with anything—no sin in behavior, no sin with the lips, no sin with the mind (Jesus added that feature), 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 insincere repentance, or by sincere Hail Marys, or penance.  But there is a way out—but the way out does not end with a one-time action; it’s not a sprint.

 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 “sewing 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.  “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 Christian again. Imagine this metaphor:  If a man sees someone he loves walking straight at a house fire, they’re in some kind of foggy hallucination, tell me what that loving person will do to stop them from arriving at the house.  Everything, right?  He will first get into his face and explain bluntly and loudly what is about to happen, in the most fervent of tones. If that doesn’t succeed, he will make whatever physical obstacle he can to slow them down, or even tackling them. Is that person crazy for extreme behavior?  No, he loves them.  He is a hero. 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? 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), 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 he didn’t warn him, and he went to hell, the blood would be on the evangelizer’s hands.  Did you get that? 

So the question is, what are we doing now for our loved, but unsaved family members?  Most people who actually “witness” take a light, unhelpful, touch, and then he/she just gives up and goes to prayer.  Such an unsatisfactory witness is due to the fact that he or she: (a) assumes God will let the unsaved live longer so as to accept the gospel later (no guarantee of that); or (b) assumes 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—though there is little evidence of it; 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 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 do nothing, I maintain that we don’t really believe Scripture.  That is a dangerous place to be in, since we’re also saying we don’t believe in what God is saying to us.  Jesus did really speak often of hell.  Did He do that just to scare us?  No, because He loved us, He warned us. But His love will NOT stop Him from His promise to carry out wrath to all those who reject Him. And that’s the majority of society.  Yes, even including in the U.S.  Jesus does what a loving person would do in my “fire” metaphor above. He gives free will—if a person is determined to ignore warnings, he ends up in the fire. 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.  To do less is to put our “belief” in the Bible, and put our “Christianity” under serious question. 

Speaking to the nominal Christians again:  Parents should start 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.  But Scripture says we think too much of ourselves already—we tend to give our kids an open path to selfishness.  To slow down our 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.  Instead, substitute pets for them to take care of, and chores to do.  Choose their after-school activities carefully; 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 night.
 

Be active in the school system; actually visit school a few times and ask many questions of the principal, all to pick up the moral tone.  If it’s bad, 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?  It’s about that fire, remember?  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. Look at church attendance for anyone over 20-35.  Plunging.  The professors in most “Christian” colleges are skeptics on Biblical creation and inerrancy of Scripture, and will lodge questions in students' 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 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.  One of their horrible activities was sacrificing their children to the god Molech.  Its relevance to today?  Your grown-up child in college can get an abortion without having to tell you.
 

Speaking of Molech: Any god other than our God is really a demon doing play acting.  Yes, I am xenophobically denying the salvation of people who are worshipers into Buddha, Hinduism, Shinto, Mormons, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Confusion, etc, etc.  Please memorize Acts 4:10,12:

 …let it be known to you all, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole….¹² Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 Yes, this intolerance has made you pause before considering getting into real Christianity. BUT—do you want to go on like the past, and hope for different results? I’m talking of freedom, love, and connection.  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” of the same tragic culture and lack of love--and expecting different results.
 

So, are you ready for this venture? The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.  God will support you.  He loves you. Obey Him—later you will love Him, believe me.    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.

The Battle Between Mainline Liberal and Conservative Christian Churches

My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "practice what it says in Matthew 18 when you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their expressed beliefs, these people may not be members of the “church,” as Scripture defines it. And how does a little guy like me privately approach these people in the first place?  Their pastor should do the job, really. And let's not forget that St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

People who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church--should we allow them freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't simply gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made that are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.

Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my "Reader’s Digest summary." I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Now, I hope you understand that if I denounce a denomination's expressed theology, that does not mean every single person in that denomination agrees with it--or even knows what it is. Nor does it mean that every single church in that denomination is in line with some heretical thinking we give.  But we may ask:  If you disagree on major theological points, why do you stay in that denomination?

Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor, here, of course, is the statements of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. Opposing them, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Keep in mind that Scripture definitely claims to be the Word of God.  Consider the definite meaning of "God-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Mainline “churches” who have these "updated" heretical beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement of Christ, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Evangelical denominations who believe Scripture is God-breathed include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online.  I would be leery of joining a church that doesn't post its creed). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge proudly, maybe a little too proudly.  But as you can see, there are plenty of churches that have a loose leash now that they are free to judge God on what's "really" His Word for now. Men judging God--hah!

So let's get down to brass tacks:  Here are five fundamental beliefs, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of non-Christian liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return.  Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.

Mr. Putnam has a shocking conclusion:  he argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in God). For an example of proof of his statement, Mr. Putnam quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that's Jesus paying the price for our sin).” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” But, Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.” Both heretical statements above are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. Neither of these people will lead you to heaven.  Believe what they say here, and hell is your desitination.  These congregations don’t believe in the God we know, and their knowledgeable leaders will have the same ultimate destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.

The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They are stating that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin--as Scripture defines it, anyway--without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says Scripture promotes slavery, demeans women, and our Bible “claims” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins.

A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to 'the mob rules.'” Following through with that reasoning, the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just a rabble-rouser trying to change culture for his own race's benefit. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, even if the German citizens didn't provide enough of a warning when it went on under their noses. The majority who were soldiers were willing to kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—and that, to them, is a no-no. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic” about not judging anybody's morality.  Touche, elitist.

They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:10, 12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:

...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Quoting those verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride.

Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, one cannot say  anything is truly wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”

The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and deeper and deeper sin under a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as non-believers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:

the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Recent data indicate that their numbers are just as strong as conservative Christians.  Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:

“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.

“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word in society) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time later on in the argument, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).

The author finally warns that “these (liberal) "Christians" will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter "non-believers" with the sword? Religious people.

Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?

Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn

What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things like that got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…

First, a definition: A good guy, for my purposes, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again--and he does not even hurt those he perceives as his enemies. Because Jesus commands it.  Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

If a person doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy" in the past. Even in a violent time period in world history. if he was likewise violently brutal with his enemies, no way can he be a "good guy."  If he is a disciple of Christ, he must go counter to the culture.  We don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points.  Then we know you're the good guy.

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and the groups were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was then set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and Bible translator John Wycliffe. The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were 50-150 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes.  A Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes also gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was actually born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade on them, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, but the people were poor for life--in effect, slaves.  They worked the property, and their profits went to the princes.  (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal oppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.

This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The Jewish synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent motivator for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s violent rants. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.

Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:

“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge:  At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the liberal Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand, but...as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (a tax used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, stumbled upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jewish) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course, and St. Augustine's theory that unbaptized infants were damned. But it was completely un-Scriptural.  Augustine, surprise, was unchallenged by the Lutheran Reformers. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again. (By the way, this seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government). This time they asked to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. The Zwingli disciples decided that only the people who followed Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this "radical" idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. But he couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to investigate Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. Now there was a novel conception at the time--but possibly Scriptural. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some beliefs considered strange at the time—not taking oaths (first allegiance only to Christ), not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled again.  This happened repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their ideas (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups got persecuted more severely--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine, and they must be behaving badly in secret.

The story for the Anabaptists ends well--they were not all killed--and some Anabaptists are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Hey, they learned to live without Smartphones.  Keep in mind, though, that many thousands of them were murdered in those days just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.

Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning, and testified against them more than once.  So he betrayed students who followed what he taught. A cowardly act of a compromising man. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12:

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach radical ideas is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts.

In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47--on other issues he disagreed with. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements.  Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Let us seek to be more courageous and like Him .

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD