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.

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 "read what it says in Matthew 18 before 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, since Matthew 18 says to confront them face-to-face first, how does a little guy like me privately approach these people?  Their pastor should do that 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 boldly made that, whether they know it or not, are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, those who have the gift of pastor are supposed to be shepherds; his congregation are the flock of 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 against this blasphemy by speaking up.

Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar (we referred to it on the blog of 7/16), there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’d like 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, have gotten to the point of a major contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor I used, here, of course, is the statements of Scripture vs. their stated belief system. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though, in fairness, 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 an anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation of it 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 "updated" their beliefs (and often miss the Gospel message, and even become heretical) include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, 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 the substitutionary atonement of Christ, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed amounts to: “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, 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 who use sarcasm 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?)

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." Atonement, by the way, is that Jesus paid 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, as 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 destination.  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--without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, and 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.

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; culture majority rules. 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 1950s 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 call attention 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. So, by their own rules, they have to remain silent on genocide.  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.

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, nevertheless. Remember, no quoted Scripture returns void (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 they are just as numerous 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 be condescending, calling them 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 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 when you say it; after all, we should pray for the lost).

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 becoming popular. 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 hurt, even 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 in full swing, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And 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 100-350 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered as ordered by Popes.  The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences most frequently were granted to reduce 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 they were poor for life.  The indentured servant poor people worked the property, and their profits went to the princes. 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 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.”

But 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 insistent rant. 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 Catholic 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 based on St. Augustine's speculation that unbaptized infants were damned—but it was completely un-Scriptural.  It also 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 to permit them 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. These "super-reformers" had decided that only the people who were old enough to follow 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. 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, an idea seldom-practiced at the time--but completely 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 (they felt that the first allegiance was 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--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their ideas (thus, following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups got it harder--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, in a way: they were not all killed--and some 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: 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.  What a way to treat your former students. 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--but this fight was on other issues. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements to the end.  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