biblical theology

by

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…

 

 

 

 

by

The Phantom Gift of Hospitality…

 

givinggift

This may seem silly to bring up, but there is a point concerning a specific “spiritual gift” (which is really not a spiritual gift) that many not only claim they have, but they also misapply! It is not only a phantom gift, but it’s supposed application is misdirected. I have searched far and wide for this gift for many years. At this point, it is safe to assume that it is at the end of a theological rainbow. And the only ones that find it are those that are taught that it exists. What is it? Nothing but the “gift” of hospitality.

Let’s begin on where they get this idea comes from. 1 Peter 4:9 says we are to show one another hospitality without grumbling. Sounds pretty straight forward. The grammatical construction implies, though, that it is following from the commands in verse 7. That means amongst other things like being watchful and sober in our prayers, and having fervent love for one another, we are to be hospitable to one another without complaining. Once again, pretty straight forward. But where someone infers from this verse that God endows us with a spiritual gift in order to be gifted in hospitality is confusing. I can see how maybe some make the mistake of reading verse 10 into verse 9 since it mentions “gifts,” but nevertheless cannot see how they can be confident about their conclusion. The list of gifts in Peter starts in verse 10, not 9. But there’s more. Romans 12 has a similar situation.

This is another popular passage cited to didactically reveal spiritual gifts. In Romans 12:6, the apostle Paul explicitly mentions “gifts differing according to the grace that has been given to us.” However, that list terminates at verse 8. Once again, the construction is in such a way that verse 9 begins a new didactic exhortation, and verse 13 is where we see hospitality cited. In context, along with Peter, we must understand that this is not referencing some special ability that the Holy Spirit gives us. In some indirect sense, once we are born again, God gives us a new heart for fellowship with believers and a love for evangelism that causes us to love the unsaved. But that is not what the “gift of hospitality” teachers assume. The believer of the hospitality gift must understand that the exhortations to use gifts differing according to grace terminates at verse 8. Then, verse 9 begins a separate set of exhortations.

So why harp on this? Why pluck this string? Two reasons: excuses and exegesis.

One the one hand, there is always someone that will misapply a verse, gift, theology, etc., to their advantage in order excuse their responsibilities (or sin) in other areas of their Christian life.  For example, they won’t evangelize because their gift is to open up their home (hospitality) to bible study. While that is good and necessary at times, this is not a substitute for any discpline the Christian is called to. And, hospitality in the Bible has more application toward persecuted and traveling believers whom have been banished from their homes, or are on evangelistic journeys. Sure opening your home is hospitable, and can be a fulfillment of Scriptural hospitality depending on the situation. But we must remember that is still not a spiritual gift.

On the other hand, basic exegesis concerning how words and theological concepts are used in their context cannot be stressed enough. The main point I’m trying to make here is that while this phantom gift is microscopic in the grand scale of heretical dogma being preached in the world, a misapplication or misunderstanding like this has avoidable consequences on a your thinking and behavior. If this simple thing cannot be grasped, exegeted, and applied correctly, what can be said of our attitude toward the basics of the gospel, or even biblical discernment? I’m not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but there is something to be said about such a loose approach to Scripture. Of course, this is not a new problem, but I’m attempting to use this phantom gift to shed light on an age-old issue. The issue being the lack discernment for practical thelogy. And it is my hope that we continue to discern from where our othropraxy flows.

 

– Until we go home

by

Comparing Adam and Israel

Scripture records Christ as “the last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45. Were there others who stood in as an “Adam” in the course of redemptive history? I think the Bible shows this to be the case, with Noah, Abraham, David, and the nation of Israel (summed up in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) being the “interim Adams” before the last One appeared.

This chart shows my view on how Israel fulfilled this role.

Comparing Adam and Israel

ADAM ISRAEL
Formed by God from the dust of the earth.

(Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:47)

 Formed by God from the dust of the people of the world. (Gen 11:10 – 11:3; Deut 7:7)
Was brought to life by the word and breath of God. (Gen 1:26 & 27; 2:7) Was brought into being by the word of God. (Gen 12:2 & 3; 15:1; Ex 3)
Had close fellowship with God. (Gen 2:15ff; 3:8a) Had close fellowship with God. (Gen 15; Ex 15; 2 Kings 23:1 – 27)
Was given a covenant within which to live and prosper. (Gen 2:16 & 17; Hosea 6:7) Was given a covenant within which to live and prosper. (Gen 17:14; Ex 19:3 – 6; 24:3 – 8; Neh 9 & 10)
Broke the covenant and received the penalty of death, which was carried out in due time. (Gen 3:6 & 7; 22 – 24; 5:5) Broke the covenant and received the penalty of death, which was carried out in the fullness of time. (Deut 31:16 – 18; Judges 2:11 – 15; Jer 11:10 – 13; 1 Kings 11:9 – 11; Ezek 44:1 – 7; Hosea 6:7)
Was cast out of the garden, cursed to walk and work in the world which was wrecked by The Fall. (Gen 3:23 & 24; 3:17 – 19) Was divorced by God, left desolate, cursed to walk and work in darkness until the light of Christ. (Jer 3:6 – 10; Matt 15:12 – 14; 23:37 & 38; 2 Cor 3:12 – 17)
As a type of Christ, Adam points us to the anti-type, Christ Jesus, in whom there is life for Adam’s children who are secure in the Last Adam. (1 Cor 15:45) As an echo of Adam, Israel points us to the anti-type, Christ Jesus, in whom there is life for Abraham’s children of promise. (Gal 4:21 – 31)
by

Beth Moore – A False Teacher

I believe this speaks volumes about the truth of where Beth Moore has gone. I have a great deal of respect for Justin Peters and appreciate his willingness to address the false teaching that Beth Moore has accepted and has been teaching for a long time.

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/has-beth-moore-become-false-teacher