History of the Sabbath

Published in 1636, Peter Heylyn’s The history of the Sabbath: in two bookes details how man’s religion re-skinned the Jewish Sabbath and called it a Christian ordinance. I have edited it to modernize the English and eliminate most of the Latin in an attempt to make this work available and accessible to 21st century readers.

From the dawning of the New Covenant, Christians have struggled over how the Old Covenant Scriptures are to be applied to the lives of the saints. Acts 15 is one of several records showing how some Christians thought the Mosaic Covenant applied to Christians, claiming saints must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses (Acts 15:1 & 5). Peter rebuked these brothers, observing that the Mosaic Law (which was the centerpiece of the Old Covenant) was a yoke too heavy for man to bear and requiring this was putting God to the test (verse 10).  Jesus said His yoke was easy, that He would carry the burden of His sheep (Matt 11:30) and John tells us, This is how we know that we love God’s children when we love God and obey His commands. For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands. Now His commands are not a burden (1 John 5:2-3).

Despite this clear teaching, over time, many Christians began to teach that Christians must be “baptized” as infants and obey the law of Moses – specifically the 4th Word of the Decalogue.

Heylyn’s book shows the historical development of this Christian Sabbatarian practice and how those who taught this practiced it. We see the common tale of those who say, “Do what I say, not what I do.” Paul taught against this (Romans 2:21); it ought not be so within the body of Christ!

I pray this old booke helps open the eyes of those who are trying to carry a heavy yoke or burden other saints with such teaching. In paper and Kindle formats.

The Life and Theology of Paul

The Life and Theology of Paul

A review by Stuart Brogden

I was intrigued when I saw this book come available for review. I’ve reviewed this author’s commentary on Acts and was eager to see how he addressed Paul. This book will not disappoint the reader who truly wants to know the theology of Paul, which is to say, the theology of the Bible.  

Guy Water’s has organized this book into 12 chapters, covering Paul’s conversion and calling by God, his view of sin, justification, sanctification, the church, and the end of the age. In the introduction, Waters points out that Paul’s life stands as “a testimony to the gospel that he preached” – even while acknowledging what we can know about Paul’s life is found only in the Bible. But considering how much of the Bible Paul wrote, and what Luke wrote about him, we have more than enough material (inspired by God!) to know Paul very well. In summing up a nice, concise review of Paul’s life, our author tells us of two ways his life is still fundamental in the life of the church today. First, God prepared Paul “from the womb to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles.”” (page 10). We should consider our own lives as having been worked out by God for use to His people, trusting Him when we are not sure of our path. Secondly, although he was dramatically converted, the man was not transformed into someone else. Since God had prepared Saul for his role, it would overthrow all that preparation if the result was a different man. God’s preparation leads to His plans being fulfilled. When we look at ourselves, we should look unto the Lord, knowing He is faithful and trustworthy to equip us and keep us.

In his review of Saul’s conversion, Waters observes (page 15), “Saul, then, would serve as a pattern or model of what Jesus Christ would do in the lives of men and women who hear Saul’s witness to Christ.” He notes that not all who hear the gospel are saved, but that those who are saved are saved in the way Saul was. I’ve made note of this myself in much the same way and think people who claim man plays a role in his own conversion would benefit from chapter 2 and the biblical evidence our author marshals.

It has been said that the basis of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification. Waters quotes Martin Luther: “If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time.” (page 49) Without a clear understanding of Who saves whom – and from Whom – the Christian will tend to drift into thinking too highly of self too lowly of Christ. Waters’ two chapters on justification follow his two chapters on sin. And following justification, we have three chapters on sanctification. I have been severely grieved of late by the number of Christians I’ve encountered who consider sanctification a one-time thing that is finished upon redemption. While I disagree with Waters on his interpretation of the man in Romans 7, his teaching in these chapters is very good and concludes on the high note that the “Christian life is one of unceasing dependence upon Christ” (page 89) and “Our ultimate good is our glorification in and with Christ.” (page 99). If we keep these biblical truths in front of us, we will do well.

Since justification is the hinge point of our faith, I think it best if we make sure we understand it. Waters quotes Romans 3:21, reminding us that “Paul has labored to argue that sinners lack the righteousness that God requires of human beings. Now, for the first time in this letter, Paul begins to describe the righteousness that God has accomplished in Christ and that He freely gives in the gospel to sinners (see Rom. 1:16-17)” (page 50). He then tell us of three important words used by Paul to define and describe this gift of righteousness: redemption, propitiation, and justification.

Redemption, we are told, has a rich history in the biblical story. In Exodus 6:6 and 2 Sam 7:23 God describes “His deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt” with this word. “In Isaiah’s prophecy, God often speaks of Himself as the Redeemer of His people,” (page 50) laying the foundation that God is the initiator and author of man’s redemption. To redeem mean to buy back something, such as a slave, by paying a ransom. In redeeming sinners, Christ Jesus has purchased us from the slave market of sin; the purchase price was His life. Waters points out that Paul connects our redemption to the shedding of Jesus’ blood in Eph 1:7.

Secondly, propitiation “is the turning aside or averting of wrath.” (page 51) Our author declares, “those for whom Jesus died have not only had their sins atoned for, but they have also had the Father’s wrath averted from them. Jesus has turned aside the wrath of God from His people because He exhaustively bore the wrath of God on their behalf at the cross.” (page 51) It has been well said that we are saved from God by God. Those who are perishing will not be separated from God in the complete sense – only as regards His benevolence. They will be personally experiencing His unending wrath for eternity as their sinful human frame is unable to atone for their sin against an infinitely holy God. This is why Paul wrote that “there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1) – God’s wrath was satisfied in the sacrifice of Jesus. There is no wrath left, no sin debt unpaid, for those who are in Christ!

Regarding justification, Waters warns us about some who claim “justification carries the idea of inward transformation” (page 52), as the Roman Catholic Church does. To Paul we go to find out his view, as we see it as something brought to us once as a gift, and the alternative to condemnation (Rom 5:16; 8:33-34). “The opposite of justification is condemnation. This … confirms justification as a strictly forensic (that is, courtroom) reality.” (page 52) Justification, he says, “has in view two inseparable realities.” (page 52) Firstly, Rom 4:7-8 teaches that forgiveness is complete, none of the sins of the saints are unforgiven, as if the blood of Christ was not sufficient. Secondly, we are declared righteous. “In Justification, God does not clear our account of debt to Him and tell us to start over and do better this time. We are, rather, counted as righteous for Christ’s sake.” (page 53) This is a status that cannot be over turned – not by man, devil or God.

One point of strong disagreement I have with Waters comes to us on page 55 where read that the righteousness of Christ is “offered in the gospel and may be refused (see Rom. 9:30-10:4)” Nowhere in the Bible is the gospel an offer, something that can be refused. When a sovereign says, Come!, that is a command of a superior to an inferior, not a request. The grace that saves is a gift from God, but not a gift that CAN be refused. A proper understanding of redemption reveals that man is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and THEN given the faith needed to receive the grace to believe. John 6:44 sums up the actions and sequence: John 6:44 (HCSB) No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. Note the first act – God draws, or drags, the person who is dead in sins (Eph 2:1-2) to Himself. Everything else, though it cannot be disconnected from this, follows it. Being regenerated, the sinner now wants God where he was unable to before. No one being so changed would be able to refuse God, just as one not changed is not able to want God nor discern spiritual things (John 8:43; 1 Cor 2:15). Further, nothing in the Scripture noted by Waters (Rom 9:30 – 10:4) supports his assertion that sinners are offered salvation and can refuse that offer.

Wanting to finish this review on a positive note, overall Waters does very good, indeed. His third chapter on justification rests on our “union with Christ.” The bond we saints have with Christ Jesus is essential to our salvation and our standing with God. He rightly asserts, “if we are in Christ, this relationship and all that it carries are due entirely to the gracious initiative of God. … Our unity rests on nothing in ourselves, but entirely on our Savior and what He has done to rescue us from sin and death and bring us to eternal life.” (page 68) Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us just as our sin has been imputed to Christ. We have no righteousness or merit of our own; if not joined to Christ we have no hope. But we who are in Christ have security, we “have a certain glorious future and, therefore, hope for the present.” (page 68)

Reader – pick up this book and read. Your soul be edified.

Infant Baptism Biblical or Unbiblical? (Part 3)

Some professing believers simply don’t see any harm with infant baptism regardless if it’s biblical or unbiblical.  However, there is indeed a great danger to the practice of infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism.  Danger?  Yes, danger!  Mankind is born into sin and to declare an infant to be spiritually cleansed is heresy!

Paedobaptists believe that the infant offspring of believers enjoy hereditary right to the covenant of grace, and due to their “baptism” they have full membership privileges in that local church.  These churches that ascribe to this practice of “infant baptism” would never consider baptizing an infant whose parents are unbelievers.  Whether the newborn infant is the offspring of believers or unbelievers doesn’t change the spiritual status of the newborn infant as a sinner in need of Christ as their Savior!

Note:  “not everyone who says Lord, Lord”…there are parents who profess themselves as believers who in fact are not.  This begs the question as to the supposed spiritual benefit inherited by the infant who is “baptized” with the assumption that their parents are believers when they in fact are not.  Now what happens regarding the infant based upon the presupposition that they are (true) believers?

The belief that infants of believing parents will guarantee the covenant benefits that God in Christ will be their God too, and thus, making them as God’s chosen elect is contrary to God already choosing His elect before the foundation of the world.  Some hold to the view that the mere physical birth of an infant to believing parents makes them members of the church and were never ungodly sinners to begin with, and their (physical) birth alone makes them members in the household of faith.

Let’s consider the subject of universal depravity regarding the harmony of these two principles.  “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 12:30-32).  By nature, men prefer the world and its sinful gratifications, versus preferring the love of God and of their neighbor.  Mankind’s affections take the place of God’s affections and therefore mankind is totally depraved.

How does this depravity apply to infant’s born to believing parents?  Simply put, the children of believing parents are just as depraved as infants born to unbelieving parents (as previously stated).  “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).  “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

Ok, let’s do some comparison between infant baptism and universal depravity.  They teach that the children of believing parents are sanctified by being born of believing parents, and that they are federally holy, and therefore, they should be “baptized.”  Though these churches teach universal depravity they negate universal depravity based upon their belief of infants being born to believing parents.  You cannot be totally depraved and somehow holy at the same time of your physical birth.  The truth of the matter is the fact that all are born into sin, and are by nature, depraved.  Those who ascribe to the hereditary claims of infant baptism falsify the doctrine of universal depravity.

Here’s what Paul said, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring” (Rom. 9:6-8).  Which shall we believe and stand firm upon?  Dear (Christian) reader we shall always stand firm upon the Word of God above any creed or confession of faith.

Another consideration to ponder is, if the infant children of believing parents are “holy,” in the “covenant of grace,” and “born into the church,” this would mean that they have pure nature’s, and the work of the Spirit of God is quite unnecessary indeed.  Being taught this from their early and formative years produces men and women who have never felt a deep sense of the miserable condition as (lost) sinners on their way to a devil’s hell nor can they have any deep sense of gratitude and appreciation for the (saving) grace of God Almighty!

Some of them may very well come to a saving knowledge of Christ by the hearing of His Word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, yet apart from this they will never know the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Infant baptism nullifies universal depravity and teaches an unbiblical message that the children of believing parents have no need of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit of God.  Therefore, infant baptism is not only unbiblical at its core, it is a doctrine of devils because it is completely contrary to God’s Holy Word.

More to come…………………………………………………..

 

Raising Passionate Jesus Followers?

A review by Stuart Brogden

There are times when I wonder if anything good can come from Zondervan. Raising Passionate Jesus Followers, by Phil and Diane Comer, did not allay that concern. After reviewing the table of contents (lots of short chapters) I made a bee-line for Appendix B – Leading Your Child to Christ, to find out, first off, if the gospel was properly presented. Sigh. For one thing, this entire book is filled with new-age talk about “sharing Jesus” and “model” Jesus. Amidst some good counsel, Read the Scriptures to them (your children) regularly!” there is a common yet sad misunderstanding of Scripture in the next sentence: “Read John 3: to them and talk about how much God loves them.” (page 284) On the next page, we are told, “After modeling for your kids what it looks like to follow Jesus; and praying and talking to them about making a decision to follow the way of Jesus; when you feel the time is right, be bold and ask them if they would like to receive Jesus as their Savior and Lord!” Praying and talking to your kids about the gospel is the right thing to do. Asking them if they would like to receive Jesus is part and parcel of the false gospel of man’s free will, couched in terms of following Jesus without the gospel being presented.

Throughout this book we find behavior, followers of Jesus, but I don’t recall once having seen the death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ by grace through faith being discussed. This aligns perfectly, however, with the perspective that behavior modification can result in a “follower.” Still in this revealing appendix, we find this (page 286):

One Sunday afternoon after church, we were driving to a friend’s house for lunch. Our oldest son, John Mark, who was just four-and-a-half years old at the time, was in the car with us. He’s just heard a clear presentation of the good news in his children’s call at church and, as we were driving, he blurted out: “I want to give my life to Jesus right now!”

We pulled the car over nest to a strip mall on a busy boulevard and led him in a prayer to receive Jesus as his Savior and Lord. Right there, in that moment, he was saved!

Later on (same page) we’re told, “You want your child to remember the life-changing decision they (sic) made, so talk about the place, the time, the night and who was there when they (sic) gave their (sic) life to the Lord. Anything to help them remember their decision as they grow older.” I don’t find any of this in Scripture! I see the saints being encouraged to keep their focus on Christ, trusting in Him – not a decision we made – to keep us until He returns. If you have to remember what you did, your confidence that you are right with God will rest on yourself rather than on the One Who saves sinners.

There is some good parenting counsel scattered throughout this book, but the work is built on the faulty foundation of decisional regeneration, a hat-tip to God’s sovereignty, and a lack of biblical clarity.

A quick review, starting with the introductory A Note to Parents, wherein we see this worldly view of the love for God we are to have (page 16): “The Jesus we wanted out kids to fall in love with is the One who …” Falling love is a Greco-Roman view of love, you are helpless, it happened to you. The biblical view of love is that it is a deliberate act of the person in response to having first been loved by God. We don’t fall in love with Jesus; we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Chapter 4 introduces us The Great Shema, and we learn that “Jesus loves your children. He longs to bring them close, to redeem them and make them his own. … God is inviting you to join Him” (page 35), He longs for a loving relationship with each of us” (page 39). Again we see a Jesus who wants to redeem sinners but is apparently unable to do so without our help. In chapter 8 we are told our goal is “to raise sons and daughters who are passionate Jesus followers. By “passionate Jesus followers” we mean kids who grow up to truly love and walk with the Lord” (page 53). By making a goal focused on results rather than on personal faithfulness, the authors are setting their readers up for a crushing sense of failure. We cannot produce Christians – God alone does that. We are to be faithful witnesses of Him by the proper teaching of His Word. If that is our goal, we can rest a bit easier, for God will enable and equip us to do this, as His instructions are to make disciples by teaching them all He has commanded. We teach; God calls people out of spiritual death into the glorious light of His kingdom.

Throughout much of this book, the authors talk about managing the box – the area (physically and psychologically) that our kids occupy. As they grow and mature, the box gets bigger. This is something I personally agree with vigorously, as we are to train our children to take responsibility for their decisions and the scope of those choices which with they can live increases as they mature.

Near the end of the book, advice for parents of adult children is given. Much of it reflects humanistic psychology, wrapped up in personal piety. “Bless your grown children by believing in them … they need our approval and affirmation” (page 263). I would hope parents would bless their adult Christian children by reminding of God’s faithfulness, not puffing them up as if they were something they are. This may be what the authors intended by the last sentence in this section: “Remember, He who began a good work in your children right in your very own home, will carry it on to completion.” Nothing in this chapter up to this point indicates whether the adult children being spoken of are “passionate Jesus followers” or not. And the authors do not once – as far as I noticed – call Christians by that name. Consistently they talk about people who follow Jesus, as if the Bible did not use that term (specifically in 1 Pet 3:16 and 4:16).

When we try to provide Christian parenting counsel, we must be true to the Word of God. Trying to be relevant to our culture and compromising the bare truth found in Scripture will end up leading people astray, not closer to God’s truth.

Infant Baptism Biblical or Unbiblical? (Part 2)

With part 1 we looked at the fact that infant baptism is not supported by the Word of God.  Today, we will learn about the perversions of God’s Word that those who espouse infant baptism use to defend and/or justify their unbiblical practice.  Some folks have a very simplistic way of viewing baptism regardless of the mode, practice, and message behind it.  However, infant baptism is not a mere ceremony, which after it is performed, is an event that is no longer significant, nor is it an isolated ordinance.

Consider the following Scripture:  “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).  Dear reader, do you see it?  The order of the Great Commission is imperative and is to be observed, followed, and practiced.  First of all, one MUST believe and secondly, baptism comes after, and this is known as “believer’s baptism.”

Biblical baptism is a result of an inward change upon the lost sinner becoming born again.  Because the Lord now dwells within a new convert there is a new character as well.  To baptize an infant is to do so regardless of the inward change and therefore though still an infant remains in the spiritual status of a lost sinner.  The infant cannot make a public profession of faith in Christ Jesus nor does the infant have any ability whatsoever to repent and trust Christ as Savior.

One of the explanations given by those who practice infant baptism is:  “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39).  A supportive verse given by those who practice infant baptism is:  “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1st Cor. 7:14).  They believe that there is a sense in which the children of even one believing parent are made holy; and that they are set apart from the world by God.

Let’s take an expository look at these two verses.  “For the promise is unto you, and to your children…”  The Greek translation of “children” in this verse is:  τέκνον, ου, τό (teknon) and is defined as:  a child, descendent, inhabitant.  The use of this term by Peter, is in the sense of posterity.  Another perversion of this passage is that the promise related to the blessings pledged in the “covenant with Abraham.”  The “promise” as stated by Peter, was the gift of the Holy Ghost to believers.  With this perversion they maintain that the “gospel” covenant is a continuance of the covenant of circumcision.

They will quote Genesis 17:7 which says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”  One other perversion of this passage, is the claim that Peter means by “the promise,” that infants are to be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and be taken into the church.  Some parents who become members of the church will ask, “what about my children?  Shouldn’t they be allowed to become members as well?”  These ministers will quickly say, “why yes, indeed they should be included and by all means that great promise of God’s being to you a God, is as much to you and your children now, as it ever was.”

The Presbyterians are widely known for their practice of infant baptism and in accordance with the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) Chapter 28 titled: ‘Of Baptism,’ para. #4 states: “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, (but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized”). The Presbyterians also believe that the New Testament texts commanding baptism are always more, and not less, inclusive than circumcision.

 
Regarding baptism Presbyterians believe that there is 1) continuity of the covenant of grace, 2) that there is a parallelism between baptism and circumcision, 3) the setting apart of believers and their children, 4) the expansion, rather than the contraction of that covenant, and 5) Jesus’ willingness to richly bless children brought to him by parents who trusted in him. Furthermore, they believe that those who are children of Abraham by faith, just like those who were once children of Abraham by birth, should give their children the sign and seal of the gospel, and pray that they will come to understand and believe the gospel their parents hold to.

Presbyterians also believe that to withhold or neglect the baptism of an infant to be a “great sin,” although they don’t consider it to be so critical in its importance that grace and salvation are inseparably annexed or joined to it.  Remember, the term “children” does not biblically refer to infants.  Presbyterians strongly hold to the circumcision being a sacramental sign that sealed a righteousness which the patriarch already had, by faith, as an uncircumcised man.

More to come…

 

 

 

 

Infant Baptism Biblical or Unbiblical?

This author very adamantly refutes infant baptism and will exposit why infant baptism is indeed unbiblical.  An interesting point that I would like to address is the use of the term “baptism” relating to infants.  Biblical baptism is total or complete immersion and those who practice infant “baptism” do not totally or completely immerse an infant and therefore “baptism” does not biblically nor correctly apply though the term is widely used.  Therefore, attaching the term “baptism” to the practice of sprinkling whether an infant or an older individual is a misnomer and it is unbiblical.

Since I am stating that what is known as “infant baptism” is unbiblical I should give clear, concise, and confessing evidence from the written Word of God as proof to my statement.  For what truly matters is what saith the Lord regardless of what any man has to say.  Our authoritative and perfect rule for life and practice is God’s inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word to mankind.  The practice of “infant baptism” lacks any divine authority and causes serious errors within the body of Christ.  For example:  many who practice infant baptism declare the infant to be a born again child of God because of their (supposed) baptism, and many parents believe their children to be “saved” as a result.

Some will arguably make the claim that infant baptism is biblical and to this statement I must say, show me in the divine record the practice of infant baptism!  Within the 66 canonical books of the Bible we are not commanded nor are we authorized to practice infant baptism.  For anyone who begs to differ let us examine the Holy Scriptures and adduce these supporting portions of Holy Writ regarding the practice of infant baptism to which there are none.  Those who are given to the practice of infant baptism believe that this “baptism” gives to the infant the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and it becomes vitally important to administer this “baptism” for the sake of the infants spiritual well-being both here on earth and in eternity as well.

baptism2

Because the Word of God is indeed our supreme rule of faith and practice and infant baptism is clearly nowhere to be found within God’s Word we must reject this practice and we should not give it any credence whatsoever.  That which is unbiblical is also anti-biblical and the belief in and practice of something that is unbiblical/anti-biblical is a doctrine of devils (1st Tim. 4:1) which is blatantly hostile to God, His Word, and Christianity itself.  “Infant baptism” is a lie straight from none other than Satan himself the father of (all) lies (Jn. 8:44).  This demonic deception has permeated Christianity and has been a long-standing tradition as a rule of faith and practice in direct opposition to God’s authoritative Word which is our rule of faith and practice.

Since infant baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures some will say that infant baptism is not forbidden and they see no evil in its practice.  However, if we truly hold to the Scriptures as our (sole) rule of faith and practice based upon this foundation alone is sufficient to declare infant baptism as unbiblical.  What God has revealed to us in His written Word we are obligated to cherish, obey (reverently), and faithfully live out and practice what God commands without any addition, dimunitin, or change.  Whenever a minister performs the (so-called) infant baptism and claims to do so by the authority of Jesus Christ is lying because Christ has never authorized infant baptism.

If one who professes Christ Jesus and (strict) adherence to His Word as a rule of faith and practice this believer is a (true) biblicist.  If one who professes Christ Jesus and makes tradition a rule of faith and practice this believer is a (true) traditionalist.  Dear reader, are you a biblicist or a traditionalist?  As for me I am a biblicist.  My next segment of this treatise will be dealing with the perversions of God’s Word regarding infant baptism.

Jim Kelley