Thirty-three Things Accomplished at Salvation

Thirty-three Things Accomplished at Salvation

The thirty-three things are given to you strictly by God's grace; they are not experiential but indicate our positional standing with Christ – it is our STATUS QUO before God forever.
• The 33 things are not experienced.
• The 33 things are owned instantly at the point of salvation.
• The believer’s status quo before God is not earned by merit.
• They are only known by revelation – the Bible.
• They come to us by grace alone by God alone.
• The 33 are eternal in character, none can be lost.
• We are either perfectly saved or we are perfectly lost. 

THE BELIEVER’S STATUS AT SALVATION

1. The Believer Is in the Eternal Plan of God.
God has a sovereign purpose for every believer. Each believer is significant in God’s infinite, eternal purpose. God will fulfill that purpose with an absoluteness that belongs to his infinity. Rom 8:29 , 30
2. Redeemed
The believer is purchased out of the slave market of sin. Even his physical body will be redeemed. Rom 3:24 ; 8:23
3. Reconciled
The Christian has a perfect and unending peace with God on the ground of the merit of Christ. II Cor. 5:18-20
4. Related to God Through Propitiation
God is satisfied that the sin problem has been solved perfectly. The ever-recurring need of adjustment between God and the child of God is possible because of propitiation. God is free to relate to believers. Rom 3:24 ; 1 John 2:2
5. Forgiven All Trespasses
All trespasses past, present and future are covered. All condemnation is removed forever. We, therefore, have an abiding peace with God. Col. 2:13
6. Sin Capacity Co-crucified with Christ
The death of Christ is a judgment of the sin nature. God is now righteously free to deal with that nature (capacity) as a thing judged. The believer is thus delivered from the reigning power of sin. It is an application of the forensic truth to experience. We are placed permanently before God as totally judged in Christ. Rom. 6:1-10 ; Gal. 2:20
7. Free from the Law
The law is a system which demands human merit. The injunctions addressed to the believer under grace are unrelated to human merit. Since the child of God is already accepted in the beloved and stands forever in the merit of Christ, application of the merit system to him is both unreasonable and unscriptural. The believer does not do to be blessed. He does because He is blessed. Rom. 6:14 ; 8:1-4 ; Gal. 5:1-4
8. Children of God
The believer becomes an heir of God. He is born into the family of God. John 3:3 , 7 . The first person becomes his father.
9. Adopted as a “Son”
Divine adoption is a divine act by which one already a child by actual birth through the spirit of God is placed forward as an adult son in his relation to God. We are placed before God as a mature son with the right to draw on eternal assets. Gal. 3:26-4:7 ; Eph 1:4 , 5
10. Acceptable to God by Jesus Christ
Through the baptism of the Holy Spirit the Christian is joined to Christ. He, therefore, partakes of all that Christ is. There is imparted to him eternal life (John 20:31 ); imputed righteousness (II Cor. 5:21 ); positional sanctification (I Cor. 1:30 ); perfected forever (Heb. 10:4 ); made accepted in the beloved one (Eph. 1:6 ); and made meet (Col. 1:12 ).
11. Justified
The believer is declared righteous by God. Righteousness imputed is the abiding fact and justification is the divine recognition of that fact. Rom. 4 ; 5:1 .
12. Made High
A work of God whereby a Christian is brought into a relationship to God which is of infinite perfection and completeness. To it nothing could be added in time or eternity. This is a close relation to God. Eph. 2:13
13. Delivered from the Power of Darkness
Liberation from satanic realms. Col. 1:13 ; II Cor. 4:3 , 4
14. Translated into the Kingdom of the Son of His Love
At salvation we are inducted into and established in the kingdom of God’s dear son. The word “translated” indicates removal from the sphere of Satan’s dominion to that of Christ. Col. 1:13 ; I Thess. 2:12 .
15. On the Rock, Christ Jesus
This is not salvation of Christian character but of Christian service. All Christian work should be built upon Christ, not sand. I Cor. 3:9-15 ; Matt. 7:24-27 .
16. A Gift from God, the Father, to Christ
The Father has given each believer to the Son. We are the Father’s love-gift. The believer’s security rests on the Father’s faithfulness to His Son, Jesus Christ.
17. Circumcised in Christ
We stand before God as one whose sin capacity has been judged and for whom a way of deliverance from the dominion of the flesh has been secured. Eph. 2:17 ; Col. 2:11 .
18. Partakers of a Holy and Royal Priesthood
Every saved person in the present age is a priest unto God. He also has a kingly reign. I Pet. 2:5 , 9 ; Rev. 1:6
19. A Chosen Generation, A Holy Nation, A Peculiar People
“Generation” – the believer is an offspring of God.“Nation” – a separate and distinct grouping among all the peoples of the earth.“Peculiar People” – born of God and are, therefore, not of this cosmos world. I Pet. 2:9
20. Heavenly Citizens
The sphere of the believer’s citizenship is heaven, not earth. He is merely a pilgrim here. This involves commonwealth privileges. Phil. 3:20 ; Eph. 2:19
21. Of the Family and Household of God
We have a true relationship with God as our Father. This is more restricted in extent that “citizenship”. Eph. 2:19 ; Gal. 6:10
22. In the Fellowship of the Saints
As the “citizenship” pertains to a relation to heaven, and “household” to God, so the fellowship of the saints pertains to their relation, the one to the other. This is a spiritual family tie. We are fellow members in the body of Christ. This is an organic, not an organizational unity, Eph. 4:1-3 ; John 17:11-23 .
23. A Heavenly Association
The phrase, “the heavenly places”, is the believer’s inherent right of association with Christ. We are partners with Christ in:
1) Life – Col. 1:27
2) Position – Col. 3:1
3) Service – I Cor. 15:58
4) Suffering – I Pet. 4:12 , 13 ; Phil. 1:29
5) Prayer – John 14:12-14
6) Marriage – Eph. 5:24-57
7) Expectation – Tit. 2:13 ; Heb. 10:13
24. Having Access to God
We have access:
1) Into His grace. The believer is not only saved by Grace, but he stands in grace, Rom 5:2
2) Unto the Father. Eph. 2:18
3) In reassuring. The believer is urged to come with confidence. Heb. 4:16 ; 10:10-20
25. Within the Much More Care of God
If God loved sinners and enemies enough to give His son to die for them, His attitude will be “much more” toward them when they are reconciled and justified. Rom 5:8-10 ; Eph. 2:7-9
26. His Inheritance
The child of God is an inheritance of the Father. Each Christian is the means whereby God is glorified. Eph. 1:6 , 18
27. The Inheritance of the Saints
The believer has an inheritance in God. His inheritance is God Himself and all that God bestows. Eph. 1:14 ; Col. 3:24 ; I Pet. 1:4 ; Heb. 9:15 .
28. Light in the Lord
God is transparently holy. The believer has, by divine Grace, become light. It is not that divine light shines upon him merely, but he is light in the Lord. Eph. 5:8 .
29. Vitally United to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
It is said that
1) The believer is in God, the Father. I Thess. 1:1
2) God, the Father, is in the believer. Eph. 4:6
3) The believer is in the Son. Rom 8:1
4) The Son is in the believer. John 14:20
5) The believer is in the Spirit. Rom. 8:9
6) The Spirit is in the believer. I Cor. 2:12 Note the word “in” in each case.
30. Blessed with the Earnest or First-Fruits of the Spirit
The child of God has some down payments which bind with certainty the larger gifts of heavenly glory. Eph. 1:14 ; Rom. 8:23 . There are five:
1) Born of the Spirit. John 3:6
2) Baptism by the Spirit. I Cor. 12:13
3) Indwelt by the Spirit. Rom. 5:5 ; 8:9
4) Sealed by the Spirit. Eph. 4:30
5) Filled with the Spirit. Eph. 5:18
31. Glorified
What God has determined, though it be yet future, is properly looked upon as sufficiently certain to be considered a present achievement. Rom. 4:17 ; 8:18 ; Col. 3:4 ; Rom. 8:30 .
32. Complete in Him
Because of his vital union with Christ, the believer partakes of all that Christ is, Col. 2:9-10 . The Father takes infinite delight in the Son, nor can He find delight in that which is less than the perfection of the Son.
33. Possessing Every Spiritual Blessing
All of the preceding thirty-two points are to be included in the sweeping term, “all spiritual blessing”, Eph. 1:3 .
Summary of “Things Accomplished at Salvation” by Dr. Lewis Chafer (Systematic Theology) by Dr. Grant C. Richison.

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism
A Matter of Law Versus Grace

By Bob Nyberg


Oh brother, not another dissertation on doctrine!? Many of us have that attitude when it comes to these "high-fa-lootin'" multi-syllable theological words. But we all practice what we believe to be true, therefore doctrine does make a difference!
Volumes have been written explaining the teachings of both covenant theology and dispensationalism. This brief paper is not intended to define these systems of interpretation. In fact, it's assumed that the reader already understands the basic tenets of dispensationalism. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that covenant theology places the believer under Old Testament law.
A Bit of History
In order to understand the development of covenant theology, we need to take a brief look at church history.
Some covenant theologians would have us believe that their belief system was that of the founding fathers of the early church. They try to make a case that dispensationalism is a mere infant when compared to the grand old scheme of covenant theology. However, the truth of the matter is that systematized covenant theology is actually of recent origin. Cornelius Van Til, a covenant theologian, admits, "the idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived." Louis Berkhof, another covenant theologian, wrote, "In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all." Dr. Ryrie points out:
It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism. That does not mean it is not biblical, but it does dispel the notion that covenant theology has been throughout all church history the ancient guardian of the truth that is only recently being sniped at by dispensationalism.
Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon… There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647, and even then covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by Reformed theologians. The covenant (or federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independently late in the sixteenth century.
Yet having said all this, much of the erroneous teachings of covenant theology can find its roots centuries earlier.
For the first three centuries the predominant belief of the early church was that Jesus Christ would literally return to the earth to reign for a thousand years. A number of historians have documented this belief of the early church Fathers. The evidence is indisputable. However, around 170 A.D. certain factors began to undermine the belief of Christ's literal return to establish a physical earthly kingdom.
The book of Revelation written by the Apostle John ends with the Lord Jesus declaring, "Behold, I come quickly (20:20)". About a hundred years had passed and this promise had yet to be fulfilled. Obviously, something was wrong! Some church leaders in Asia Minor decided to reject the book of Revelation from the canon of scripture. They may have reasoned that this supposed declaration by Jesus must somehow be false. In actuality there were a number of factors that influenced them in their decision to reject Revelation from the canon of scripture:
A certain group of Christians had taken their premillennial beliefs to an unhealthy extreme. Therefore anyone who believed that Jesus would return to establish a literal kingdom upon earth was viewed with suspicion.
Many early Christians taught that Christ would soon return and crush the Roman power that was ruling the empire. Some of the leaders of the early church felt that it would be better to sacrifice their premillennial belief rather than face more intense persecution.
There was also a strong anti-Semitic spirit in the eastern church. The thought of Christ regathering Israel to their land was an abomination to them.
A new method of Biblical interpretation known as Alexandrian theology greatly changed the view of scripture. Origen (185-254) and other scholars in Alexandria developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on allegory. Origen and his contemporaries were greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophy. They tried to integrate this into their theology. According to Greek philosophy all physical matter was inherently evil. Therefore the idea of a literal earthy, millennium with physical blessings could only be erroneous. This allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation allowed these theologians to read almost any meaning they desired into the Bible. Thus they were able to do away with a literal return of Christ to establish a physical earthly millennial kingdom.
All of these factors set the stage for the rejection of premillennialism. In the early days of his Christian faith Augustine (354-430) was premillennial. However, through time he abandoned the idea of a literal return of Christ to establish a physical kingdom on earth. He used this new allegorical method of interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and thus amillennialism was born. In his book, The City of God, Augustine taught that the Universal Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ's first coming. When the church lost the hope of the imminent return of Christ it plunged headlong into the dark ages. The seeds of false interpretation bore fruit giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a works-based religion. Augustine's amillennial teaching continued to be the standard view of organized Christendom until the 17th century. Occasionally premillennial groups challenged that doctrine through out the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful Roman Catholic church.
On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. One of the primary factors that caused him to break away from the Roman Catholic Church was his understanding of Sola Fide—the doctrine that man is justified by faith alone without works. Through Luther and the reformers, God restored the doctrine of salvation by grace back to His true church. The reformers understood grace in regard to salvation, but for Christian living they fell into the Galatian error of works. They knew that they couldn't keep the law in order to gain salvation, but the law became the rule for living the Christian life. Little did they realize that sanctification is also by grace.
When the reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic church, they carried a lot of baggage with them. Amillennialism was one such fetter that kept the church in bondage to the law.
You might be wondering, "how does a doctrine about the ‘end times' affect the teaching of law and grace?" That's a good question. Augustine and his contemporaries faced a dilemma. It had been years since the Lord Jesus had said, "behold I come quickly." By doing away with the literal return of Christ for His church, Augustine no doubt felt that he was helping God out. After all, if there was no literal return of Christ and no literal millennium, then Christ could be reigning over His spiritual kingdom up in heaven. The literal promises given to Israel in the Old Testament could be spiritually applied to the church. However, applying those promises to the church came at a tremendously high cost. Attached to the promises given to Israel was also the Old Testament law. If the church is "spiritual Israel" then she must also keep the law—if not for salvation, then at least for Christian living.
Anytime man decides to help God out, he just makes trouble for himself. A good illustration of this is found in the account of Chronicles. When king David decided to bring the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem he put it on an ox-drawn cart. But in the law God specifically told Israel that priests were to carry the ark on poles. In 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 we read, "And when they came unto the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God." Uzza paid dearly for trying to help God out. His intentions may have been good, but the results of his efforts were devastating.
Proverbs gives us some very sobering advice about tampering with the Word of God: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar [Prov 30:6]." Concerning the book of Revelation, the Lord Jesus Himself said, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book [Rev 22:18-19]." In all of these warnings, nothing is said about those who would distort God's Word through allegorical interpretation. Augustine's intentions may have been noble when he tried to help God out. He may have felt that amillennialism could help to explain Jesus' statement in Revelation about His soon return, but the results of Augustine's efforts were devastating.
Throughout the Old Testament many so-called religious leaders opposed God's true prophets. Jeremiah predicted Judah's demise if she kept rebelling against the Lord. The religious elite of that day claimed that he was a traitor. They threw him into a cistern and left him there to die. False prophets opposed Jeremiah's predictions and the result was the Babylonian captivity. These false prophets didn't learn anything from this captivity. They continued to tamper with God's Word which ultimately resulted in 400 years of silence—the Old Testament equivalent of the dark ages.
I'm not equating Augustine with the false prophets of Jeremiah's day. Those false prophets knowingly distorted and opposed God's Word. I don't think that Augustine intentionally tried to distort God's Word. His intentions were noble. Like Uzza, he simply tried to give God a helping hand. Under the dispensation of the law, Uzza lost his life for his noble attempt. But Augustine lived in the dispensation of grace. He did not pay for his noble attempts with loss of life. Never-the-less, the church has paid dearly for Augustine's attempt to steady the solid foundation of Scripture. Just as Israel received her just rewards—400 years of silence—so too the church plunged head-long into the dark ages following Augustine's misguided efforts.
Israel's 400 silent years ended with the bright hope of the birth of Messiah and the promised Messianic Kingdom. But that hope soon dwindled with Israel's rejection of Messiah. The promise of the Messianic Kingdom was put on hold until Israel would be ready to accept her Messiah.
So too, the dark ages ended with the bright hope of the reformation and the rediscovered truth of salvation by grace. But that bright hope was tarnished by the snares of legalism that kept the reformers in bondage. When Martin Luther stepped away from the Roman Catholic church he drug with him the ball and chain of amillennialism's law-based teachings. The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican reformers rejected premillennialism as being merely "Jewish opinions." They continued to maintain the amillennial view which the Roman Catholic church had adopted from Augustine. J.B. Stoney notes that:
In the Reformation there was, through grace, a great deliverance. The ground-work of Christianity was recovered; namely, justification by faith. But though this was recovered, it was not maintained that the old man was crucified on the Cross, and hence they only refused the exaction of popery, but considered the flesh as still before God. Refusing the exaction was right; but the retention of that on which the exaction could be made, the old man, was and is the weakness of the Reformation.
Miles Stanford also observes that:
The Lutheran Church is an example of … little birth truth and no growth truth, resulting in legalism, lack of eternal security, and even a charismatic element as well as liberalism. In general, the Reformation-oriented Reformed Churches, with birth truth but little or no growth truth, also reflect this imbalance in their unscriptural application of "the law as the rule of life" for the believer.
Dr. William R. Newell pretty well sums it up when he wrote:
Almost all the theology of the various ‘creeds of Christendom' date back to the Reformation, which went triumphantly to the end of Romans Five, and, so far as theological development or presentation of truth was concerned, stopped there.
The reformation brought back the truth of salvation by grace, but reverted to the law for living the Christian life. This law-grace paradox continued to plague the church until John Nelson Darby and his contemporaries came on the scene in the early 1800's. Darby adopted the literal, historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. As Darby studied God's Word in this light, the distinction between Israel and the church seemed to leap off the pages of Scripture before his eyes. He and his contemporaries took the truths of dispensationalism and put them into a more systematized form. God used this to restore to the church not only the imminent, premillennial return of Christ, but also the teachings of grace for living the Christian life.
During the time period between Luther and Darby, covenant theology came into being. Unfortunately, it reflected the "law-based" doctrine of Amillennialism.
Covenant theology was introduced to America primarily through the Puritans. Dispensational theology came to America primarily through Brethren teachers such as Darby and his contemporaries.
Covenant Theology and the Law
Dr. Renald Showers defines covanant theology "as a system… which attempts to develop the Bible's philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants. It represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by two or three covenants." Dr. Ryrie says:
Formal definitions of covenant theology are not easy to find even in the writings of covenant theologians. Most of the statements that pass for definitions are in fact descriptions or characterizations of the system. The article in Bakers Dictionary of Theology comes close to a definition when it says that covenant theology is distinguished by "the place it gives to the covenants" because it "represents the whole of Scripture as being covered by covenants: (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace." This is an accurate description of the covenant system. Covenant theology is a system of theology based on the two covenants of works and grace as governing categories for the understanding of the entire Bible.
In covenant theology the covenant of works is said to be an agreement between God and Adam promising life to Adam for perfect obedience and including death as the penalty for failure. But Adam sinned and thus mankind failed to meet the requirements of the covenant of works. Therefore, a second covenant, the covenant of grace, was brought into operation. Louis Berkhof defines it as "that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience."
Some Reformed theologians have introduced a third covenant, the covenant of redemption. It was made in eternity past and became the basis for the covenant of grace, just described, between God and the elect. This covenant of redemption is supposed to be "the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given him." These two or three covenants become the core and bases of operation for covenant theology in its interpretation of the Scriptures.
Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems:
It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture.
It tries to unify scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, Berkoff insists that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of these two covenants in Galatians 3:18. Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.
It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom.
It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.
It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events. When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine's allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.
It places the believer under the law.
This last point, in my opinion, is probably the most devastating blow against Christian doctrine and practice. The Galatian error of law and works has plagued the church from its very beginning. Covenant theology has only served to promote this error.
Previously, we noted that the Westminster Confession and the Puritans were two of the primary tools that advance covenant theology. Let's take a look at what one Puritan theologian had to say with regard to the Westminster Confession. Dr. R.L. Dabney [1820-1898], a well-known Southern Presbyterian [Covenant] theologian, brought out the difference between the Puritan's Westminster Standards, and the grace-stand of Luther and Calvin.
The cause of this error [the teaching of assurance of salvation] is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome. These noble Reformers... asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, "My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me."
Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error... for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected. (Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16)
According to Reformed, Puritan, covenant theology the idea of telling believers that they can know for sure they are saved is a grievous error. The covenant view of assurance is diametrically opposed to what Luther and Calvin taught. Can you know for sure that you are saved? Not according to Dabney, and his covenant friends. The end result is a gospel of works with NO assurance of salvation.
Yes, doctrine in one area will surely affect doctrine in all other areas. When you start mingling Israel and the Church you open yourself up to all kinds of errors. On the surface it might not seem like one's view of future events is important, but when you see the trouble it leads to, I'm inclined to think that it behooves us to avoid the "slough of covenant despond!"
Dispensational Theology and the Law
The traditional view of dispensational theology kept Israel separate from the church. It kept the law separate from grace. Yet, in recent years that distinction has become blurred. Small cracks were seen in the dispensational dike about 30 to 40 years ago. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., a non-dispensational theologian, observed:
Somewhere in the decade of the 1960s, one of the most significant developments in dispensationalism took place. It happened so quietly, but so swiftly, that it is difficult to document, even to this day. This is what changed the whole course of dispensationalism: the view that there were two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, was decisively dropped. The implications of such a move are enormous, as the events that followed duly testified.
The new covenant was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," yet the church was obviously enjoying the benefits of this same covenant. They drank the "blood of the covenant" in the Lord's Supper, and they had "ministers of the new covenant."
But when Israel and the church were viewed as sharing one and the same covenant, the possibilities for major rapprochement between covenant theology and dispensationalism became immediately obvious. Moreover, that one factor ended the major roadblock in a key hermeneutical rule that dispensationalism had repeatedly stressed in the past: keep Israel's mail separate from the mail that was written for the church. Thus, 2 Chronicles 7:14 ("If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves…"), for example, did not need to be restricted, as had been taught, solely to Israel but could now be addressed to the whole church. On the same bases, the Sermon on the Mount was released from its future kingdom setting for use by the whole body of Christ now.
Today those cracks have turned into a virtual flood as a new brand of dispensational theology has come on the scene. Progressive dispensationalism (which is really regressive in nature) has continued to blur these Biblical distinctions even more. This new brand of dispensationalism is really a compromise between dispensational and covenant theology.
Within the dispensational ranks we have men like John MacArther who claims to be a dispensationalist. On the one hand he says:
Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church… And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist.
But on the other hand he states:
There is a tendency, however, for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they can make unbiblical distinctions. An almost obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly has led various dispensationalist interpreters to hard lines not only between the church and Israel, but also between salvation and discipleship, the church and the kingdom, Christ's preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance, and the age of law and the age of grace. The age of law/age of grace division in particular has wreaked havoc on dispensationalist theology and contributed to confusion about the doctrine of salvation.
It's no wonder that Dr. MacArthur advocates the works oriented gospel known as Lordship Salvation. He refuses to recognize the difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. He blurs the distinctions between Israel and the church… between law and grace… between discipleship and salvation. As you read through the writings of Dr. MacArthur, you will see that the majority of authors he quotes are Puritan, Covenant, Reformed theologians. His theology has definitely been tainted by the law. Dr. Newell rightly observed:
It is a harmful perversion of the truth of God to teach (as did the Puritan theologians) that while we are not to keep the law as a means of salvation, we are under it as a ‘rule of life.' Let a Christian only confess, ‘I am under the law,' and straightway Moses fastens his yoke upon him, despite all his protests that the law has lost its power. Men have to be delivered from the whole legal principle, from the entire sphere where law reigns, ere true liberty can be found.
There are numerous doctrines and practices that are eroding the foundations of dispensational theology. Men such as Dr. MacArther and Dr. Charles Stanley would lead us to believe that as Christians we have no sin nature. They tell us that our problem lies in the fact we have residual bad habits that are left over from when we were sinners. By ignoring the sin nature in us, they are merely putting a "Band-Aid" over the real problem. They deal with symptoms and not the cause. They would try to utilize the law in order to keep the flesh under control. They resort to the world's system of "behavior modification" to deal with a spiritual problem. They leave Christians wallowing in Romans chapter 7 with no hope of reaching Romans chapter 8. Dr. MacArther has followed the slippery path right behind his so-called progressive friends and the myriad of others who would mix law with grace.
One of the most depressing articles that I came across was an exposition of Romans chapter 7 written by A. W. Pink, a covenant theologian. According to him, Romans 7 is the normal Christian life. We can never hope to gain the victory found in Romans 8 during our lifetime. This is the hope that law-based religion holds out to you and me.
I've attempted to show the pitfalls and dangers of embracing a law tainted doctrine. Yet, even those of us who promote the teachings of grace have a morbid propensity to slip back into the law in our own Christian life. For instance, we receive a material blessing and begin to wonder what we did to deserve it. Or when something bad happens to us we wonder what evil we did to deserve it. We naturally think that somehow we must merit God's blessings. Or we think that our failures result in demerit in the eyes of God. This type of mentality comes from the law—not grace.
The way we treat each other also reveals our failure to understand and appropriate grace. Sometimes we feel that we should only give grace where grace is due. But grace that is deserved is not grace—it's merit. It's a good thing that God doesn't just give us grace when we deserve it. We'd be in big trouble if that were true!
When bank-tellers are taught to tell counterfeit money from real they are given genuine currency to handle. By knowing the real, they will be able to see the false. Only a solid understanding of grace will keep us from being ensnared in the tangled web of law-based covenant theology.
End Notes:
Cornelius Van Til, "Covenant Theology," in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 1:306
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (second revised and enlarged edition; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941), 211.
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Moody Press: Chicago,1995),185.
Renald E. Showers, There Really is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc: Bellmwr, NJ, 1990)
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Moody Press: Chicago,1995),183-184.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. "An Epangelical Response" in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church-The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 369.
John R. MacArthrur, Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 25.
Ibid.

What Is the Relationship between Faith and Works?

What Is the Relationship between Faith and Works?


How should we understand the relationship between faith and works in salvation and how does the Book of James’ teaching on faith and works relate with that of the apostle Paul?

The apostle Paul presents faith as the alone instrument of salvation, apart from works. He writes in Romans, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). Paul is especially ruling out religious rites as a way to become right with God. In Romans 4:4-5, Paul extends this to works of any kind, writing, “To the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”

We may sum up Paul’s teaching on faith and works as follows: 1) We cannot be saved by works, because all our works are corrupted by sin, but Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and offered his perfect works to God for us; 2) By faith in Christ, we are forgiven of our sins because of his death on the cross, and we receive by imputation his perfect fulfillment of God’s Law. Whereas we cannot be saved by our works, we are saved through faith by the work of Jesus Christ; 3) Having been saved by faith alone, we are called to do good works, living in accordance with God’s law and serving him with our lives. This is all laid out in Ephesians 2:8-10, “By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

The apostle James writes about faith and works differently. One reason is the difference in the type of letter and purpose of writing. In letters like Romans and Ephesians, Paul presents a doctrinal treatise. His concern is to systematically lay out certain truths. James is writing what we call “wisdom literature.” His Book in the New Testament is analogous to the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. His concern is to pastorally exhort his readers. Because of this James says things about faith and works that some people think contradicts what Paul teaches. One of them was Martin Luther, who therefore all but rejected the Book of James and once called it “the epistle of straw.” In fact, James does not contradict Paul, but speaks about faith from a different point of emphasis.

James’s concern was to preach against empty, formal belief, which he says is really not a living or saving faith. “What good is it, my brothers,” he asks, “if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?. . . Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (2:17-18).

James’ point is that for faith to be alive, it must produce works. Using the example of Abraham, whose faith was finally proved by his willingness to offer his son, he writes in a way that seems to be even more challenging to Paul’s doctrine of faith alone: “A person is justified,” he says, “by works and not by faith alone” (2:24). This verse is celebrated by those who oppose or want to change Paul’s teaching on faith alone. But James’ point is made clear by his elaboration on the matter by, for instance, verse 22, which says, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” That is something Paul would have strongly affirmed, that a living faith, which alone saves us through Jesus Christ, is only one which proves itself through good and obedient works. As John Calvin famously put it, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that really saves us never is alone.”

James, like Paul, distinguishes between faith and works. Paul emphasizes that we are saved through faith apart from works; James emphasizes that the faith that really saves us is a faith that does works. Together, they provide us a well-rounded New Testament teaching on faith alone as that which saves us to a life that is characterized by good works in living worship unto the Lord.

The Error of Replacement Theology

The Error of Replacement Theology

by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.



Perhaps you have heard of the term Replacement Theology. However, if you look it up in a dictionary of Church history, you will not find it listed as a systematic study. Rather, it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.

What Is Replacement Theology?

Replacement Theology was introduced to the Church shortly after Gentile leadership took over from Jewish leadership. What are its premises?

0. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.

1. The Jewish people are now no longer a "chosen people." In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans.

2. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group.

3. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term "Israel," as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.

4. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.

How Do Replacement Theologians Argue Their Case? They Say:

(Note: I have added my rebuttal to each point.)

0. To be a son of Abraham is to have faith in Jesus Christ. For them, Galatians 3:29 shows that sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: "And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Rebuttal: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.

1. The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham was only a "starter." The real Promised Land is the whole world. They use Romans 4:13 to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. "For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Rebuttal: Where does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church.

2. The nation of Israel was only the seed of the future Church, which would arise and incorporate people of all nations (Mal. 1:11): "For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, My Name shall be great among the nations, and in every place, incense shall be offered to My Name, and a pure offering for My Name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts."

Rebuttal: This is great, and shows that the Jewish people and Israel fulfilled one of their callings to be "a light to the nations," so that God's Word has gone around the world. It does not suggest God's dealing with Israel was negated because His Name spread around the world.

3. Jesus taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges, and be replaced by another people (Matt. 21:43): "Therefore I am saying to you, 'The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it.'"

Rebuttal: In this passage, Jesus was talking about the priests and Pharisees, who failed as leaders of the people. This passage is not talking about the Jewish people or nation of Israel. See Teaching Letter #770008, "Did God Break His Covenant With the Jews?"

4. A true Jew is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he is racially Gentile or Jewish (Rom. 2:28-29): "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Rebuttal: This argument does not support the notion that the Church replaced Israel. Rather, it simply reinforces what had been said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures [the Old Testament], and it certainly qualifies the spiritual qualifications for Jews or anyone who professes to be a follower of the God of Israel.

5. Paul shows that the Church is really the same "olive tree" as was Israel, and the Church is now the tree. Therefore, to distinguish between Israel and the Church is, strictly speaking, false. Indeed, people of Jewish origin need to be grafted back into the Church (Rom 11:17-23).

Rebuttal:This claim is the most outrageous because this passage clearly shows that we Gentiles are the "wild olive branches," who get our life from being grafted into the olive tree. The tree represents the covenants, promises and hopes of Israel (Eph. 2:12), rooted in the Messiah and fed by the sap, which represents the Holy Spirit, giving life to the Jews (the "natural branches") and Gentile alike. We Gentiles are told to remember that the olive tree holds us up and NOT to be arrogant or boast against the "natural branches" because they can be grafted in again. The olive tree is NOT the Church. We are simply grafted into God's plan that preceded us for over 2,000 years.

6. All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, unless they were historically fulfilled before the coming of Jesus Christ, are now the property of the Christian Church. These promises should not be interpreted literally or carnally, but spiritually and symbolically, so that references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion and the Temple, when they are prophetic, really refer to the Church (II Cor. 1:20). "For all the promises of God in Him (Jesus) are Yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us." Therefore, they teach that the New Testament needs to be taught figuratively, not literally.

Rebuttal: Later, in this Teaching Letter, we will look at the fact that the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church's relationship to Israel and her covenants as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "Abraham's offspring (by faith)" (Rom. 4:16), and "partakers" (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).

How Did The Position Of The Early Church Fathers Affect The Church?

Let us look at a brief history of the first four centuries of Christianity, which established a "legacy of hatred" towards the Jewish people, which was against the clear teaching of the New Testament.

(For a complete history of Christian anti-Semitism, send the equivalent of US$1 to your nearest BFP National Office and ask for a copy of the Israel Teaching Letter (#779806), "Where Was Love and Mercy," or download a copy from our Bridges for Peace website, found under the Israel Teaching Letters button at www.bridgesforpeace.com This teaching is also a chapter of my book, Lessons From the Land of the Bible with 13 other great teachings including "Lessons from the Olive Tree," which can be ordered from your nearest BFP national office.)

In the first century AD, the church was well-connected to its Jewish roots, and Jesus did not intend for it to be any other way. After all, Jesus is Jewish and the basis of His teaching is consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew 5:17-18 He states: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Before the First Jewish Revolt in AD 66, Christianity was basically a sect of Judaism, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Separation between Judaism and Christianity began as a result of religious and social differences. According to David Rausch in his book, A Legacy of Hatred, there were several contributing factors:

1) the Roman intrusion into Judea, and the widespread acceptance of Christianity by the Gentiles, complicated the history of Jewish Christianity;

2) the Roman wars against the Jews not only destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, but also resulted in Jerusalem's relinquishing her position as a center of Christian faith in the Roman world; and,

3) the rapid acceptance of Christianity among the Gentiles led to an early conflict between the Church and Synagogue. Paul's missionary journeys brought the Christian faith to the Gentile world, and as their numbers grew, so did their influence, which ultimately disconnected Christianity from its Jewish roots.

Many Gentile Christians interpreted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as a sign that God had abandoned Judaism, and that He had provided the Gentiles freedom to develop their own Christian theology in a setting free from Jerusalem's influence. Could it be He was showing us that Temple worship was no longer necessary as His Holy Spirit now resides in us (I Cor. 6:19), not in the Holy of Holies?

After the Second Jewish Revolt (AD 133-135) put down by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, theological and political power moved from Jewish Christian leaders to centers of Gentile Christian leadership such as Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. It is important to understand this change, because it influenced the early Church Fathers to make anti-Jewish statements as Christianity began to disconnect itself from its Jewish roots.

As the Church spread far and wide within the Roman Empire, and its membership grew increasingly non-Jewish, Greek and Roman thought began to creep in and completely change the orientation of Biblical interpretation through a Greek mindset, rather than a Jewish or Hebraic mindset. This would later result in many heresies, some of which the Church is still practicing today.

Once Christianity and Judaism began to take separate paths, the chasm became wider and wider. Judaism was considered a legal religion under Roman law, while Christianity, a new religion, was illegal. As Christianity grew, the Romans tried to suppress it. In an attempt to alleviate this persecution, Christian apologists tried in vain to convince Rome that Christianity was an extension of Judaism. However, Rome was not convinced. The resulting persecutions and frustration of the Christians bred an animosity towards the Jewish community, which was free to worship without persecution. Later, when the Church became the religion of the state, it would pass laws against the Jews in retribution.

The antagonism of the early Christians towards the Jews was reflected in the writings of the early Church Fathers. For example, Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) in speaking to a Jew said: "The Scriptures are not yours, but ours." Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. AD 177) declared: "Jews are disinherited from the grace of God." Tertullian (AD 160-230), in his treatise, "Against the Jews," announced that God had rejected the Jews in favor of the Christians.

In the early 4th century, Eusebius wrote that the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not the Jews, and the curses were for the Jews. He argued that the Church was the continuation of the Old Testament and thus superseded Judaism. The young Church declared itself to be the true Israel, or "Israel according to the Spirit," heir to the divine promises. They found it essential to discredit the "Israel according to the flesh" to prove that God had cast away His people and transferred His love to the Christians.

At the beginning of the 4th century, a monumental event occurred for the Church, which placed "the Church Triumphant" over "Vanquished Israel." In AD 306, Constantine became the first Christian Roman Emperor. At first, he had a rather pluralistic view and accorded Jews the same religious rights as Christians. However, in AD 321, he made Christianity the official religion of the Empire to the exclusion of all other religions. This signaled the end of the persecution of Christians, but the beginning of discrimination and persecution of the Jewish people.

Already at the Church Council in Elvira (Spain) in AD 305, declarations were made to keep Jews and Christians apart, including ordering Christians not to share meals with Jews, not to marry Jews, not to use Jews to bless their fields, and not to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

Imperial Rome, in AD 313, issued the Edict of Milan, which granted favor to Christianity, while outlawing synagogues. Then, in AD 315, another edict allowed the burning of Jews if they were convicted of breaking the laws. As Christianity was becoming the religion of the state, further laws were passed against the Jews:

* The ancient privileges granted to the Jews were withdrawn.

* Rabbinical jurisdiction was abolished or severely curtailed.

* Proselytism to Judaism was prohibited and made punishable by death.

* Jews were excluded from holding high office or a military career.

These and other restrictions were confirmed over and over again by various Church Councils for the next 1,000 years.

In AD 321, Constantine decreed all business should cease on "the honored day of the sun." By substituting Sunday for Saturday as the day for Christian worship, he further advanced the split. This Jewish Shabbat/Christian Sunday controversy also came up at the first real ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325), which concluded Sunday to be the Christian day of rest, although it was debated for long after that.

Overnight, Christianity was given the power of the Imperial State, and the emperors began to translate the concepts and claims of the Christian theologians against the Jews and Judaism into practice. Instead of the Church taking this opportunity to spread its Gospel message in love, it truly became the Church Triumphant, ready to vanquish its foes.

After 321, the writings of the Church Fathers changed in character. No longer was it on the defensive and apologetic, but aggressive, directing its venom at everyone "outside of the flock," in particular the Jewish people who could be found in almost every community and nation. During this period, we find more examples of anti-Jewish bias in Church literature written by church leaders:

* Hilary of Poitiers (AD 291-371) wrote: "Jews are a perverse people accursed by God forever."

* Gregory of Nyssa (died AD 394), Bishop of Cappadocia: "the Jews are a brood of vipers, haters of goodness..."

* St. Jerome (AD 347-407) describes the Jews as "... serpents, wearing the image of Judas, their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys."

At the end of the 4th century, the Bishop of Antioch, John Chrysostom (Golden Tongued), the great orator, wrote a series of eight sermons against the Jews. He had seen Christians talking with Jewish people, taking oaths in front of the Ark, and some were keeping the Jewish feasts. He wanted this to stop. In an effort to bring his people back to what he called, "the true faith," the Jews became the whipping boy for his sermon series. To quote him, "the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it is also a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. No Jew adores God... Jews are inveterate murderers, possessed by the devil, their debauchery and drunkenness gives them the manners of the pig. They kill and maim one another..."

One can easily see that a Judeo-Christian who wanted to hold on to his heritage, or a Gentile Christian who wanted to learn more about the parent faith of Christianity, would have found it extremely difficult under this pressure. Chrysostom further sought to separate Christianity totally from Judaism. He wrote in his 4th Discourse, "I have said enough against those who say they are on our side, but are eager to follow the Jewish rites... it is against the Jews that I wish to draw up my battle... Jews are abandoned by God and for the crime of deicide, there is no expiation possible."

Chrysostom was known for his fiery preaching against what he saw as threats to his flock, including wealth, entertainment, privilege and outward adornment. However, his preaching against the Jewish community, which he believed had a negative influence on Christians, is inexcusable and blatantly anti-Semitic in its content. Another unfortunate contribution Chrysostom made to Christian anti-Semitism was to hold the whole Jewish people culpable for the killing of Christ.

In the fifth century, the burning question was: If the Jews and Judaism were cursed by God, then how can you explain their existence?

Augustine tackled this issue in his "Sermon Against the Jews." He asserted that even though the Jews deserved the most severe punishment for having put Jesus to death, they have been kept alive by Divine Providence to serve, together with their Scriptures, as witnesses to the truth of Christianity. Their existence was further justified by the service they rendered to the Christian truth, in attesting through their humiliation, the triumph of the Church over the Synagogue. They were to be a "Witness people" - slaves and servants who should be humbled.

The monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire thus regarded the Jews as serfs of the chamber (servi camerae), and utilized them as slave librarians to maintain Hebrew writings. They also utilized the services of Jews in another enterprise - usury, or money-lending. The loaning of money was necessary to a growing economy. However, usury was considered to endanger the eternal salvation of the Christian, and was thus forbidden. So, the church endorsed the practice of lending by Jews, for according to their reasoning, their Jewish souls were lost in any case. Much later, the Jewish people were utilized by the Western countries as trade agents in commerce, and thus we see how the Jewish people found their way into the fields of banking and commerce.

So, by the Middle Ages, the ideological arsenal of Christian anti-Semitism was completely established. This was further manifested in a variety of precedent-setting events within the Church, such as Patriarch Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, expelling the Jews and giving their property to a Christian mob. From a social standpoint, the deterioration of the Jewish position in society was only beginning its decline. During this early period, the virulent judeo- phobia was primarily limited to the clergy who were always trying to keep their flocks away from the Jews. However, later, the rank and file, growing middle class would be the main source of anti-Semitic activity.

The result of these anti-Jewish teachings continued onwards throughout Church history, manifesting itself in such events and actions as the Crusades, the accusation of communion host desecration and blood libel by the Jews, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks to ostracize them, the Inquisition, the displacement of whole Jewish communities by exile or separate ghettoes, the destruction of synagogues and Jewish books, physical persecution and execution, the Pogroms. Ultimately, the seeds of destruction grew to epic proportions, culminating in the Holocaust, which occurred in "Christian" Europe.

Had the Church understood the clear message of being grafted into the Olive Tree from the beginning, then the sad legacy of anti-Semitic hatred from the Church may have been avoided. The error of Replacement Theology is like a cancer in the Church that has not only caused it to violate God's Word concerning the Jewish people and Israel, but it made us into instruments of hate, not love in God's Name.

Is the New Testament anti-Semitic? Was it Intended That the Church Treat the Jewish People with Contempt?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

While the New Testament has been used by Gentile anti-Semites, even within the Church, the writers of the New Testament were Jewish, and therefore their arguments, even critical ones, were from the vantage point of being an intra-communal debate, not inter-communal accusation. Even where the criticism is harsh, it is directed towards a particular group or sect of Jews because of their practices, which needed correcting. For example, even though Yeshua spoke harshly to the Pharisees, He nevertheless said of them, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt: 23:2-3). He was distressed that they were "missing the mark" in their self-righteousness, which is something all of us need to be careful of doing.

The clear teaching of the New Testament is that the Church was and is to love and honour the Jewish people. In Ephesians 2:11-18, we are told that "by the blood of Messiah," we Gentiles are "made near" to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, promises and hopes given to Israel. In Romans 11:11-12, 25, we are told that "blindness in part" has come to the Jews so that the message would be forced out into the nations. Nevertheless, we are told that a time would come when "all Israel would be saved" (v. 26), because the gifts and callings of God towards Israel and the Jewish people were given without repentance (v. 29). God's relationship with Israel and the Jewish people is everlasting.

We Gentile Christians are told that the Jews are "beloved for the sake of the Patriarchs" (Rom. 11:28). They are a chosen people who fulfilled their calling and brought the Gospel to the world. They were chosen to:

1) Be obedient to God's Word and demonstrate to the world as "a light to the nations."

2) Hear God's Word and record it - the Bible.

3) Be the human channel for the Messiah.

The Jewish people have fulfilled their role. The promise to the world through Abraham was that, "in you will all the nations on the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). They were to be a light unto the nations and, while they made mistakes as we all do, they did demonstrate the power of God on earth, they did hear God's Word and record it so that we have the Bible, and they were the human channel for the Messiah, who was born, ministered, died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and will return to Jerusalem, Israel, in a day yet to come.

God made an everlasting covenant between the land of Israel and the Jewish people that must be fulfilled and completed or His Word, the Bible, will be proven a lie, which it is not. God will never forget or annul His ancient people. If God will not fulfil His promises to Israel, what guarantee do we have that He will fulfil His promises to the Church? (See Jeremiah 31:35-37).

Are Jews, Jews, and is Israel, Israel in the New Testament? Do They Still Have a Covenant with God?

ABSOLUTELY. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THIS.

1) The Jews are Israelites, not Gentiles (Rom. 9:4).

2) To Israel still belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises (Rom. 9:4).

3) The gifts and calling of God for Israel are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).

4) There are 77 references to Israel in the NT and none of them refer to the Church. Try replacing the words, "the Church," where Israel is mentioned and the passage is rendered unreadable and silly, e.g., Rom. 10:1, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." If you put "the Church" where Israel is mentioned, then it is redundant. The Church is the body of saved believers, so how could Paul's prayer be for the Church to be saved?

5) Psalm 105 has a seven-fold affirmation of God's promises of Canaan to Abraham. This is an everlasting promise, as was Genesis 12:1-3.

6) Jeremiah 31:35-37 speaks of the everlasting nature of God's promises to and for Israel, the Jewish people, which is as sure as the sun that shines by day and the moon and stars that glow in the night.

7) The end-time prophecies, which speak of the return of the House of Jacob to their land (Israel) and its restoration, have overwhelmingly been fulfilled in Israel and the Jewish people in the past 120 years. (See, Isa. 11:11-12; Eze. 37:1-14; Eze. 36; Eze. 35:1, Isa. 43:5,6; Jer. 16:14-16; Isa. 60:9-11; Isa. 49:22-23, etc.).

8) The Gospel and Yeshua came "to the Jews first, then the Greek" (Rom. 2:9,10; Matt:10:5-7;15:24). There is a distinction in roles between the two. Galatians 3:28 says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is speaking of everyone's standing before God as equals, because we are all sinners saved by God's grace and the atoning work on the Cross. Nevertheless, our roles here on earth are definitely distinct; e.g., men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, etc. all have distinct roles to play. Likewise, Jews and Gentiles have distinct roles to play.

What is the Role of the Church?

1) "On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is built on the testimony and understanding of Peter, who is Jewish. Ephesians 2:11-14 indicates that Israel and the Jews (we) were chosen, but Gentiles (you) were also included. 2) The Church is related to Israel and partakers of the covenants, promises, and hopes, but we have not been called to usurp them. Our relationship is as "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17); "brought near" (Eph 2:13); "Abraham's offspring" (by faith) (Rom. 4:16); "heirs" to Abraham's promise as adopted sons (Gal. 3:29) and "partakers" (Rom 15:27).

3) To the world, the Church is called to preach the Gospel to all nations and make disciples (Matt. 28:19-20); to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength; and to love our neighbour as ourselves (Mk. 12:30-31).

4) To the Jewish people, we are called to show God's love "for the sake of the Patriarchs" (Rom. 11:28), for without them we would not have had God's Word or our Saviour who was a Jew from Israel. We are to show God's mercy (Rom. 11:31). We are to give our material gifts to help them (Rom. 15:27). We are to pray for them and for Israel (Ps. 122:6). We are to be watchman on the walls to protect them (Isa. 62:6,7). We are to help with the aliyah (immigration) to Israel and the building up of Zion (Isa. 60:9-11; Jer. 16:14-16; Isa. 49:22-23).

5) According to Romans 11, we are two distinct groups, both grafted into the same tree, which are the covenants and promises given to Israel; grounded in the same root, the Messiah; drinking of the same sap, God's Holy Spirit. We do not hold up the tree, but the tree us, and we are forbidden from boasting against or being arrogant to God's covenant people the Jews (Rom. 11:17-18).

What Happens When the Church Replaces Israel?

1) The Church becomes arrogant and self-centred.

2) It boasts against the Jews and Israel.

3) It devalues the role of Israel or has no role for Israel at all.

4) These attitudes result in anti-Semitism in word and deed.

5) Without a place for Israel and the Jewish people today, you cannot explain the Bible prophecies, especially the very specific ones being fulfilled in Israel today.

6) Many New Testament passages do not make sense when the Jewish people are replaced by the Church.

7) You can lose the significance of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, for today. Many Christians boast of being a New Testament (NT) Christian or a NT Church as in the Book of Acts. However, the Bible of the early Church was not the New Testament, which did not get codified until the 4th century, but rather the Hebrew Scriptures.

8) You can lose the Hebraic/Judaic contextualization of the New Testament, which teaches us more about Yeshua and how to become better disciples.

9) The Church loses out on the opportunity to participate in God's plan and prophecy for the Church, Israel and the world today.

What Happens When the Church Relates to Israel?

1) The Church takes its proper role in God's redemptive plan for the world, appreciating God's ongoing covenant relationship and love for Israel and the Jewish people.

2) We can see the consistency of God's redemptive plan from Genesis to Revelation as an ongoing complementary process, not as disconnected snapshots.

3) We show love and honour for God's covenant people, not contempt.

4) We value the Old and New Testaments as equally inspired and significant for the Church today.

5) Bible prophecy makes sense for today and offers opportunities for involvement in God's plan for Israel.

6) We become better disciples of Yeshua as we are able to appreciate the Hebraic/Judaic roots that fill in the definitions, concepts, words and events in the New Testament that are otherwise obscured. Why? Many were not explained by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, because they did not feel the need to fill in all the details that were already explained in the Old Testament.

Had the Church understood this very clear message from the beginning, then the sad legacy of anti-Semitic hatred from the Church may have been avoided. The error of Replacement Theology is like a cancer in the Church that has not only caused it to violate God's Word concerning the Jewish people and Israel, but it made us into instruments of hate, not love in God's Name. Yet, it is not too late to change our ways and rightly relate to the Jewish people and Israel today. Through Bridges for Peace you can read, study and learn more, and also give to demonstrate God's exhortation to us to bless His Covenant People, whom He still loves. Not only do we need to learn and do for ourselves, but we need to teach others so as to counteract the historical error that has been fostered in the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

Thank God, He is a God of mercy, redemption and second chances.

Bibliography

1) Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology, (MacFarland: Jefferson, NC, 1992).

2) Leopold Lucas, The Conflict Between Christianity and Judaism, (Aris & Phillips, Warminster, UK: 1993).

3) The New International Study Bible, (The Zondervan Corporation: Grand Rapids, MI, 1985).

4) The New Scofield Reference Bible, Authorized King James Version, (Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1967).

5) Keith Parker, Is the Church the "New Israel?, (Prayer for Israel: Golant, UK).

6) James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, (Athenaeum, New York, 1974).

7) David Rausch, The Legacy of Hatred, (Moody Press: Chicago, IL, 1984).

8) Marcel Simon, Verus Israel, (Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1986).

9) Clarence H. Wagner, Jr., Lessons from the Land of the Bible, (Bridges for Peace: Jerusalem, Israel, 1998).

10) Eds. C. Roth and G. Wigoder, Encyclopaedia Judaica, (Keter Publishing House, Ltd.: Jerusalem, Israel, 1972).

11) A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1935).

12) Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1983)


From The Bridges for Peace Web Site: http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/teaching/Article-18.html

Why You Should NOT Tithe (Selected Scriptures)

Why You Should NOT Tithe (Selected Scriptures)



“It would be political suicide to give that speech,” said an aide to his boss. “He’s right, Senator,” chimed in another aide. “It’s just one clear-cut statement after another” (Morrie Brickman, Reader’s Digest [4/83]).

It’s probably suicidal for a pastor to preach on why you should not tithe! It’s risky at best, because some may hear the part about not tithing and block out the rest of the message! I would guess that if everyone who came regularly to this church gave ten percent to the church, our income would probably triple, at least! So why am I not preaching instead on why you should tithe?

The answer is that tithing is not the New Testament standard for giving. Perhaps more than any other factor, giving reflects the condition of our hearts: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21). You can fake some things, but you can’t fake giving your money! You may get mad at me, but I’m going to give it to you straight: If you give ten percent or less of your income to the Lord’s work, in most cases it reflects a lukewarm heart toward God. I used to give ten percent and thought I was doing fine. Then I made the mistake of preaching on giving! I discovered that God’s Word teaches that ...

We should not tithe because God wants us to give generously, and tithing is the bare minimum.

Our God is a generous, giving God who so loved the world that He gave that most precious gift, His only begotten Son. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). As God’s people who are to be like Jesus, we are to be generous givers.

The Bible teaches that God, who richly has supplied us with all good things, wants us “to be generous and ready to share” (1 Tim. 6:18). But what does generosity mean? Isn’t giving 10 percent of my income to the Lord’s work being generous? If not 10 percent, how much should I give?

1. Tithing is not the New Testament standard for giving.

Many churches promote a concept called “storehouse” tithing, based on Malachi 3:10, where God tells Israel to “bring the whole tithe into the storehouse.” They teach that the local church is the storehouse, the tithe belongs to God, and His blessing is conditioned upon faithfulness in tithing. One pastor in a church near me in California preached that if his people weren’t giving ten percent to that church, they were in sin and needed to go home and repent!

Before I critique this view, let me point out that there are some commendable points regarding tithing: (1) Those who tithe are often acting in obedience to what they believe God has commanded. (2) Tithing gets some to increase what they give. (3) Tithing helps consistency and discipline in giving. But consider these seven reasons why tithing is not God’s standard for Christians:

A. TITHING WAS A PART OF THE LAW OF MOSES; BELIEVERS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW.

Romans, Galatians, and other New Testament passages make it clear that Christians are not under the law of Moses. That does not mean that we are lawless, because we are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:20-21; James 1:25; 2:8, 12; Rom. 13:8-10). Those aspects of the Mosaic law that reflect the moral character of God are valid under the New Covenant and are repeated as commands in the New Testament. But the church is never commanded to tithe.

Those who argue for tithing point out that Abraham and Jacob both tithed prior to the Mosaic law (Gen. 14:20; 28:22). Thus tithing supersedes the law, they argue. If the New Testament gave no further guidelines, that might be a valid point. But it does, as I will show. But there are other practices, such as circumcision and sabbath-keeping which pre-date the Law and yet are not binding on us.

If you examine the references to Abraham’s and Jacob’s tithing, you will see that God did not command them to tithe and there is no indication that this was their regular practice. On one occasion after a victory in battle, Abraham tithed the spoils from that battle, but nothing is said regarding his other possessions or his regular income (Gen. 14:20). To follow Jacob’s example would be wrong, because he was making a conditional vow before God, promising that if God would keep him safe and provide for him, then he would give God a tenth (Gen. 28:20-22). That’s hardly a good example to follow in giving! Tithing was required under the Mosaic Law, but believers are not under the Law.

B. TITHING WAS AN INVOLUNTARY TAX TO SUPPORT ISRAEL; BELIEVERS ARE NOT A PART OF THE THEOCRATIC NATION.

In the Old Testament, there was both required and voluntary giving. The tithe was required. It was commanded for every Israelite to fund national worship and help the poor. In actuality, there was not just one tithe, but rather two or three ([1] Lev. 27:30-33, Num. 18:20-21; [2] Deut. 12:17-18; [3] Deut. 14:28-29), so that the total was not 10 percent, but more like 22 percent (see Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Moody Press], p. 86). Thus if we are required to bring the whole tithe into the storehouse today, we had better up the percentage from 10 to 22 percent!

C. TITHING IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CHURCH, ALTHOUGH MUCH IS SAID ABOUT GIVING.

G. F. Hawthorne writes (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [Zondervan], 3:854:

Since the tithe played such an important part in the OT and in Judaism contemporary with early Christianity, it is surprising to discover that never once is tithing mentioned in any instructions given to the church. Jesus mentions scribes and Pharisees who tithe ..., but he never commanded his disciples to tithe. The writer to the Hebrews refers to Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek and Levi paying his tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham ..., but he never taught his readers to follow their example. Paul writes about sharing material possessions to care for the needs of the poor ... and to sustain the Christian ministry .... He urges and commends generosity ... but never once does he demand, as a command from God, that any specific amount be given.

If tithing is to be practiced by the Christian church, it seems strange that Paul did not mention it when he wrote of giving, especially to the predominately Gentile churches which would not be familiar with the Old Testament.

D. TITHING IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.

By itself this is not decisive, but it lends weight to the biblical arguments. If the early church practiced tithing, then the concept should surface somewhere in the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. But it does not, even though giving was an important part of early Christian worship (see Hawthorne, pp. 854-855).

E. TITHING PUTS THE WRONG EMPHASIS UPON GIVING.

Tithing emphasizes your obligation to God; New Testament giving, as we shall see, emphasizes your willing, loving response to God’s grace. Furthermore, tithing limits giving by making a person feel that he has paid his dues (so to speak) and thus nothing more is required, when, in fact, much more could be done. Tithing has a tendency to put a person on a legal basis with God, rather than a love relationship. It’s the wrong emphasis.

F. TITHING LEADS TO A FALSE CONCEPT OF STEWARDSHIP.

It leads to the notion that 10 percent is God’s money and 90 percent is my money. In reality, 100 percent is God’s money, and He may want me to channel 90 percent into His work and live on 10 percent. Tithing can be a bad rut.

G. TITHING IS BURDENSOME FOR SOME AND TOO EASY FOR OTHERS.

If a man with a family of five makes $20,000 a year and tithes, he has $18,000 (apart from taxes) to support five people. If a childless couple makes $100,000 a year and tithes, they have $90,000 (apart from taxes) to support two people. That would be burdensome to the man with five mouths to feed, but ridiculously easy for the couple.

There are seven reasons that argue against tithing. Then what is God’s standard for giving?

2. Generous grace giving is the New Testament standard.

When you say “grace,” a lot of people, unfortunately, connect it with hang-loose, undisciplined living. But that is not grace! Nor is grace the balance point between legalism and licentiousness. Rather grace (as a system) is totally opposed both to legalism and licentiousness, which are two sides of the same coin.

Legalism and licentiousness both operate on the principle of the flesh. Legalism is an attempt to earn standing with God through human effort and leads to pride or condemnation, depending on how well you do. Licentiousness casts off restraint and lives to gratify the flesh.

But God’s grace is His unmerited favor based on Christ’s sacrifice. The motivating power in grace is the indwelling Spirit of God. The person under grace responds out of love and gratitude to God and depends upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to conform his life to what God requires. With that basic understanding of grace, let me spell out some things that grace giving is not, and then some things that grace giving is.

A. GRACE GIVING IS NOT ...

(1) Random and irresponsible. It does not mean that you give every now and then, hit and miss; rather (as we shall see next week), it is planned and systematic (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7).

(2) Based on feelings. Being under grace does not mean living by feelings. Living under grace means walking by faith and obedience in response to God’s love. There are many commands under grace.

(3) Usually less than the requirement of the law. God’s grace should motivate us to excel far more than the minimum under the law (1 Cor. 15:10).

(4) Giving God the leftovers. God deserves the best, not just what is convenient. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then we won’t just give Him what’s left over after the bills are paid. He deserves first place.

Thus grace giving is not sloppy, irresponsible, haphazard giving whenever we feel like it.

B. GRACE GIVING IS BASED ON ...

(1) God’s example in Christ (2 Cor. 8:9). Aren’t you glad that God did not just give a tenth! He gave all. The Lord Jesus Christ was infinitely rich. He dwelled in the unimaginable splendor of heaven, apart from the sin and corruption of this world. But He gave that up, laid aside His privileges, and took on human flesh. He could have chosen to be born as a prince in palatial splendor. But instead He was born and lived in poverty. He ultimately impoverished Himself to the maximum by taking upon Himself the sin of the human race in order that we might become rich (2 Cor. 5:21).

Grace giving looks to the nail-pierced hands of the Lord Jesus, who gave Himself so that we might be rescued from the wrath of God, and says, “Lord, You gave all for me! What can I give back to You?”

(2) The concept of stewardship. “You are not your own, for you have been bought with a price ...” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). All that we are and have belongs to God, not just a tenth. I am merely the manager of His resources. As a good manager, I use the Owner’s resources to further His work (see Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:27-30 for some examples).

(3) Inner motivation, not outward compulsion (2 Cor. 8:3-5; 9:7). Motive and attitude are crucial. It is better to give a small amount based on a loving response to God’s grace than it is to give a large amount based on outward pressure or pride. Note the attitude of the Macedonian believers: they had an abundance of joy (2 Cor. 8:2); they gave of their own accord (8:3); they begged with much entreaty for the favor (8:4!); first they gave themselves to the Lord (8:5); they had both the readiness and desire (8:10-12, 9:2); they gave cheerfully, not grudgingly or under compulsion (9:7).

We should not think, “How much do I have to give?” but rather, “How much can I give?” We should not wait for someone to pressure us with a need; we should look for needs that we can meet (8:4). I look for and give to Christian organizations or workers that do not pressure donors with desperate appeals for funds. You almost don’t notice these workers because there are so many pleading for your money so that they “won’t go off the air next week.” May I say, “Let them go off the air!” Christians ought to give based upon inner motivation, not outward pressure. Grace giving is based on ...

(4) A new relationship with the Holy Spirit, not the old dispensation of the Law. Romans 8:14 says, “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” Galatians 5:18 says, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” The context of both passages shows that Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit leading the believer into righteous, godly living. In Galatians, such righteous living is spelled out in the context, in part, as sharing financial resources (6:6, 10).

It’s easier in some ways to follow a set of rules. Just give your 10 percent and that takes care of the matter. But God wants us to be led by the Holy Spirit. That’s kind of scary! The Holy Spirit might want me to give 35 percent or who knows how much! But the point is, I am not living by rules, but in a relationship with the living God.

(5) How much God has prospered you. How much should you give? How much has God prospered you? (Note 1 Cor. 16:2, “as he may prosper”; Acts 11:29, “in the proportion that [they] had means”; 2 Cor. 8:3, 11, 12). Generally, they gave according to their ability, and in some cases beyond their ability. Sometimes you should give sacrificially. (We will look at that next week.) But the general principle is, give as God has prospered you.

When God entrusts you with more money, instead of spending it on more junk that you have to protect from moths, rust, and thieves, you should ask, “Lord, how do you want this money used in Your kingdom?” As God gives you more, you should increase the percentage you give, not just the amount. If you have enough to live comfortably, then invest the rest where God pays guaranteed, eternal dividends.

But here’s the catch: we need to start giving where we’re at, and not put it off until someday when we’re rich. The Macedonians gave in the midst of a great ordeal of affliction, out of deep poverty (2 Cor. 8:2). Jesus commended the poor widow who gave all she had to live on, but He was not impressed with the large gifts of the rich, because they had much left over (Mark 12:41-44).

George Muller is remembered as a man who received millions of dollars to support his orphanage, in response to secret prayer, without making any needs known to others. What many don’t know is that Muller gave away vast amounts to the Lord’s work out of funds that were given for his personal support. From 1870 on, he personally contributed the full support for about 20 missionaries with the China Inland Mission. From 1831-1885, he gave away 86 percent of his personal income! As the Lord prospered him, he could have lived in style. But he lived simply and gave away the rest.

Conclusion

Generosity and grace giving are built on the qualities we have already studied. If you’re free from bondage to greed and debt, you won’t be enslaved to money. If you’re a person of integrity and if you’re faithful as a manager, not the owner, of your money, then when God supplies you with more, you will prayerfully channel anything above personal and family needs into His kingdom.

In this church, we don’t use pressure or gimmicks to get people to give. I want your giving to be between you and God, based on your response to the love He has shown you at the cross. Also, I want to encourage each of you to refuse to give to any organization that uses pressure and fund-raising gimmicks. If you believe in the work of this church, then give generously as God has prospered you, out of love for Him.

Don’t assume that because we don’t use pressure we don’t have needs. I believe it is legitimate to inform the church family about needs so they can give wisely. We have needs: to meet our monthly budget; to get some better office equipment; to pay off the mortgage on the house next door so that we can use it and the house across the street for ministry; to buy more property for adequate parking; to pave the lot behind the church. We have to turn away missionaries who need support. I believe the way to meet these needs is to help God’s people get their hearts right before Him and to teach what His Word says about money and giving. As we respond to God’s grace by giving generously, the needs will be met.

A farmer who was not much concerned with spiritual matters once went to hear John Wesley preach. Wesley was preaching about money and he soon had the farmer’s attention, because his first point was, “Get all you can.” The farmer nudged his neighbor and said, “This is unusual preaching! I’ve never heard the likes of this before. This is good!” Wesley talked about hard work and purposeful living.

His second main point was, “Save all you can.” The farmer became more excited. “Did you ever hear anything like this?” he exclaimed. Wesley denounced waste and extravagance. The farmer was quite happy, thinking, “I do all this.”

But then Wesley advanced to his third point, which was, “Give all you can.” “Oh, dear! Oh, dear!” moaned the farmer. “He has gone and spoiled his sermon.”

I hope you don’t think that I have spoiled this series on money by saying, “Give all you can.” God has given all for us; He wants us to be cheerful, generous givers who respond to His grace.

Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

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, baptized non-Christians. While at the same time, the church is full of non-baptized Christians, like some of you. What a strange paradox that is. And it raises the issue of baptism and what it is and why people are so confused about it. We here at Grace Community Church understand baptism biblically. We understand its method, we understand its meaning. We have even through the years put baptisms on the radio, which no other ministry that I know of has ever done. We have, through the years, in the early days of our Shepherds Conference has taken one of the nights of Shepherds Conference to do baptisms. We had a baptism last week at the conclusion of the Truth Matters Conference. And essentially, just about every single Sunday night through the year right here we have testimonies of people being baptized. We understand what believer’s baptism is from Scripture.

But there’s a world of people who don’t get it, who don’t understand it. And there are 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. There are folks who are just plain confused about baptism, what is its method, and what is its meaning, and in particular, what about the baptizing of infants, which is how you get a world full of non-Christians who have been baptized as infants.

The church in recent years has become kind of media oriented. Many people come to Christ by listening to Christian radio, Christian television, going to some kind of big event, some kind of meeting, some kind of what is called a crusade or something like that. In situations like that they would hear nothing about nor have any opportunity for baptism, true believer’s baptism. These people typically float around and maybe go a little bit here and a little there from church to church and baptism never becomes an issue for them. Many churches are so designed to be pragmatic and baptism isn’t really a very pragmatic thing to introduce into people’s lives. And so it just gets left behind. Pragmatism has been the death of the sacraments, we might say. But what concerns me is that we need to understand baptism because it is in Scripture a command…a command. The Great Commission is very clear at the end of the gospel of Matthew in chapter 28, you know these words. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and 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 thousands of people, three thousand baptized, thousands more day after day after day in the early days of the church as it began to grow. It is clear in Scripture that Baptism is a requirement, it is a command, both to the individual believer and to the church. Still its confusion is widespread, hence millions of baptized non-Christians and perhaps millions of unbaptized Christians.

So I want to talk about baptism from the biblical viewpoint. I don’t want you to be ignorant of this issue and you won’t be after we have covered what we’re going to cover tonight and perhaps a little bit next week. You’re going to have to face the reality that this is a command and you are called to be obedient. You cannot be indifferent to it because it is a command. You could be defiant, unwilling, and it is very possible that you could be completely disinterested because you’re not willing at all to confess Christ openly and publicly.

But for those who are genuinely believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, we need to understand what the Bible says about baptism. Much confusion over baptism has come from this phenomena called paedo-baptism, or baby baptism.

Where did this come from? And to get a proper separation from all that is untrue about baptism, to place yourself in the category of knowing what it really is so that you can be obedient to it, we need to talk a little bit about infant baptism. For those of you who are former Roman Catholics, you were probably 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 go pretty much down the line until we get to the Baptists, you were probably baptized as a baby, or there’s a good possibility that your parents believed in that.

What I’m saying is, this is widespread. It is part and parcel of the Roman Catholic system as well as the orthodox system, which was the Eastern Catholic Church. It is part and parcel of Reformed Protestant theology with the exception of those who have a view of baptism and identify themselves as such by calling themselves Baptists or those who identify with that view of baptism that we call believers, baptism. But for the most part, historically, Christianity has been marked by infant baptism. In fact, from about the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm in the Christian church. The Reformation in the 1500’s didn’t change that. So in that sense, it was an incomplete Reformation.

It was a few years ago that I was asked to speak on this subject, which I gladly did because there needed to be clarity in the minds of Reformed people over this issue.

Well, I was clear about it, and made a biblical case for it. And yet the tradition is so steep and deep that little change comes from that community. They continue to defend infant baptism.

You say, “Well, is it a big issue?”

It’s a huge issue, and I’m going to show you why. I’m going to give you five reasons why we must reject infant baptism, five reasons. Here’s the first one and this would be enough, infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. It is therefore impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. There’s not an incident of it, there’s not a mandate, there’s not a call for it, there’s not a description of it. It doesn’t appear. In fact, if you go back in history, and I’m going to do that a little bit with you, you will find that historians have affirmed this fact. Theological leaders in generations past have affirmed this truth.

For example, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.” And he would come from a Lutheran tradition, but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there. The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible.

It arose, first of all, started appearing in the second and third century, became normalized in the fourth century. B. B. Warfield who was a noted Presbyterian, Presbyterians do infant baptism, affirmed that infant baptism does not appear in the Scripture. We might think that if this is true that the Calvinistic regulative principle might be applied, the regulative principle of the Reformation said if Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden, that was called the regulative principle.

How in the world did it stay when people recognized that it wasn’t in the Bible? Well it did. And it was no small issue. In point of fact, not only for twelve hundred years until the Reformation was it in place, the norm in the organized church, the Catholic Church, but even through the whole of the middle Ages it continued through the Reformation and out the other side, even until today. And during the middle Ages, severe ecclesiastical laws were created as part of the civil code. In Europe, nations were divided. There were Catholic nations, or countries, and Protestant countries. And there was no separation of church and state, the church and the state were one great sort of monolithic power. There were Catholic states and there were Protestant states. And everybody in a Catholic state was a Catholic by virtue of infant baptism. And everybody in a Protestant state was a Protestant by virtue of Protestant infant baptism.

And so, if you were in the country, you were not only under the civil code from a social standpoint but you were under the civil code from a religious standpoint. And rebaptism, rebaptizers were called Anabaptists. That’s what ana means, again, rebaptizers. And if you were a rebaptizer of somebody who was baptized as an infant, that was a capital offense…that’s right, a capital offense. It was an act against the state, against the state church and you could pay with your life.

It was considered a heresy worthy of death. Anybody who violated baptism as ordained in their country, whether a Catholic or a Protestant country, came under the punishment of this civil code. This was around for a long time. If you go back to the year 391 you read the following order from the emperors. “Whoever forsakes the holy faith and desecrates the holy baptism through heretical superstition shall be excluded from human society.”

In other words, if you go against infant baptism, you’re excluded from human society, may give no judicial evidence, can as has been before prescribed, make no will…you couldn’t leave a will, take possession of no inheritance or be appointed heir by no one. So if you came along and said believers need to come to the place of faith in Christ and then be baptized, which is what the New Testament teaches, you were persona non-grata in your society. The document also, this translated into English, says, “We would also banish such person to far distant places if we did not deem it a more severe punishment to make him dwell among men without having the pleasure of fellowship with them. But he shall never regain his former legal capacity, nor can he at any time make amends for his crime by repentance, nor hide the same under invented evasions and excuses because those who profaned the faith which they placed in God and as traitors to divine mysteries associate with the unbelieving, cannot be justified by tissues of lies. For one comes indeed to the help of the fallen and erring but to the infamous who profane the holy baptism, no amelioration can procure mitigation as in the case of other offenses.” You’re done if you affirm any other than an infant baptism. You are finished in the society.

A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” They executed the person who did the baptizing and the person who was baptized. As a result of the execution, something else would follow, the confiscation of all possessions. Further quoting from the writer Wormes, “Originally indeed these severe laws of the civil code were not issued for the defense of infant baptism, but were to secure the existence of the state church against rebaptism in any Christian circles. And the property of such persons was confiscated. They were branded violators of the civil law, punished by death and the loss of all property.”

Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives. The Catholic Church hated the Anabaptists even through the Middle Ages, the Reformers, the Reformed Church who got their soteriology right, hated the Anabaptists, the rebaptizers, because they bought into the Roman Catholic view of infant baptism. And one of the sad realities of the Reformation is that Reformers who believed in sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus, all the solas, drowned people who baptized believers. You want to be baptized, we’ll put you down and won’t bring you up until you’re dead.

There were always those who believed in baptism, as the New Testament teaches it, Bohemian Brethren, Waldencians, pre-Waldencians, the broad name of Anabaptists which was a nickname meaning rebaptizers. And as I said, the Reformation didn’t provide any respite for this. We read. “But of these ideals, the Reformation period had little understanding and even in the newly formed Protestant Churches, freedom of conscience remained an unknown thing. Not only was it again laid down exactly what and how one must believe, but all other opinions and convictions in matters of faith were suppressed with iron energy. Luther’s original defense of the freedom of a Christian remained an unfulfilled demand. The right of free Christian individuality was an ideal that remained at that time unrealized.” This writer says, “The Reformation did not bring to an end the zeal for bloody persecution. On the contrary, it began a new era of tribulation, tears and blood and not less indeed in the regions of the churches that it separated from Rome than where the Roman Church continued to assert its way.”

In other words, the animosity and the persecution of these people who wanted to do baptism the way the Scripture says were persecuted both in Catholic and Protestant places. This persecuting zeal was directed very specially against the rebaptizers who rejected infant baptism and demanded a return to the original Christian mode of baptism taught in the New Testament.

So sometimes you hear people 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 about to be drowned for believing it. The city law for Hanover, Germany, and other German cities with the specific approval of Luther and Melanchthon, called for all rebaptizers to be beheaded. The Zwinglians and Baptists were to be flogged and banished from the city forever. They saw believers baptism as disrupting the national church, posing a threat to national solidarity and being a blasphemous heresy that would corrupt others and break the power of the nationalized church. All over Germany, rebaptizers were called devilish vermin and executed.

You know, it saddens the heart of a Protestant, let alone a Baptist like me, by conviction to read such judgments from the pen of a Catholic historian. But truth must be honored. So the sixteenth century church as we know it, the Reformed Church that we love for its soteriology, knew no tolerance for rebaptizers. Infant baptism was required as the only baptism and defended by fire, water and the sword.

You would have thought that if one of the great hallmarks of the Reformation was sola scriptura, that if they really believed that everything had to come from the Scripture, they would have set aside infant baptism since it wasn’t anywhere in the Bible. But in spite of its absence in Scripture, they defended it and practiced it as if it was biblical and the pressure was that the Catholics had these unified states that were unified both by political and military power, but also unified by religious power and everybody was a Catholic because you were baptized a Catholic. And so you were under the tyranny of the church and that way they controlled their populations which made them powerful forces. And the Protestant states that they didn’t do that would be weakened by disparity and diversion and they had to make sure that all their people were also part of everything and there was absolute solidarity so they could defend themselves against the Catholic nations. So they held on to something that I am convinced that even Martin Luther knew wasn’t in the Bible and wasn’t really right.

We expect the Roman Catholic Church to engage in such practices because the Roman Catholic Church is full of things that aren’t in the Bible, right? Of course, we know that. and they also believe in a whole source of revelation outside the Bible which they call Tradition, or the Magisterium, church councils, the Pope speaking ex cathedra. And it all carries equal weight with Scripture. And, of course, they are the only true interpreter of Scripture so they can twist and pervert the Scripture to make it say things that it obviously doesn’t say. We expect that from the Roman Catholic Church. We expect the Roman Catholic Church to come up with things that aren’t biblical.

But what is sad is that the Reformed Church never really filled up the Reformation. And when you debate this sometimes with them, they say, “Well, history tells us that the Reformers accepted that.” And when I hear that, I always say, “History is not a hermeneutic. History is not a principle of interpretation. It doesn’t matter what happened in history. A lot of things happen in history that can’t be viewed as the Revelation of God. Only honest hermeneutics, honest exegesis in the Scripture can yield the true meaning of Scripture. You can’t read habits into Scripture, you can’t read traditions into Scripture. History is no hermeneutic. History does not contribute to the true interpretation of Scripture. They will come back with this, “Well the Scripture doesn’t forbid infant baptism. The Scripture doesn’t forbid it.” That is really a very, very fragile argument. Are we supposed to affirm the reality of all kinds of things Scripture doesn’t forbid to justify that sprinkling babies as an act of Christian baptism is done because it’s not forbidden in Scripture and to standardize it, and imprint it with divine authority, though it’s a ceremony invented by men for the worst of political reasons is then to open the way to any ritual, any behavior, any ceremonial, any teaching or anything else that isn’t strictly forbidden by Scripture.

I go back to the regulative principle. If it’s not in the scripture, you can’t do it. Luther started out with his revolt against the Roman Catholic Church, drawing a line in the sand, he said this, “The Church needs to rid itself of all false glories that torture Scripture by inserting personal conceits into the Scripture. No…he said…Scripture, Scripture, Scripture for me constrain, press, compel me with God’s Word.” That’s a quote from Luther. But there are no scriptures.

Well, they say, “What about 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. All that’s saying is childlike faith is necessary to come into the Kingdom.

Well what about Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, “Let the little children come to Me for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t see any baptism there. Our Lord is simply saying that God has a special care for children, not the children of believing parents and not baptized children. Jesus never baptized any children, nobody in the Bible ever baptized any children. Nobody was ever told to baptize children. All children were precious. The children that He held in His hand and blessed were not necessarily the children of believing parents and there is no baptism in any way…in any case anyway.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.

You have another reference to this in John 4:53, he himself believed and his whole household, referring to the noble man whose son Jesus healed. He himself believed and his whole household. It doesn’t say anything about being baptized, it says about believing, the household believed. That’s the model…you hear, you believe, you’re baptized.

Acts 2:38 says, “Repent, be baptized for the remission of sins.” And then people point out that in the next verse which is verse 39, they might be talking about infant baptism, for the promises of you and your children. Oh come on. “Your children” is referring to the next generation of Jews because it also says, “For your children and for all who are afar off.” Who are those that are afar off? Gentiles. The reference is to…the promise is for you and your children, that is generation after generation of Jews and to the Gentiles, the ones who are far off. This isn’t about Baptism…not about baptism at all, it’s about the promise of salvation to future generations of Jews and Gentiles.

So those would be the touchstone texts that people would use to defend infant baptism. You can’t find an infant in any of them and you certainly can’t find a baptism of any infant. One other one is 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and I’m just touching these because this is how people try to defend what isn’t in the Bible as if it were. “If a brother has a wife who is an unbeliever,” 1 Corinthians 7:12, “she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.” Don’t just divorce your unbelieving wife because she’s not a believer. Verse 13 turns it the other way, “A woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she shouldn’t send her husband away.” That was the question in the early church. People coming to Christ, do I dump my unbelieving spouse? No…no. Verse 14, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife. The unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, otherwise your children are unclean and now they are holy, or separated.”

What is that saying? That is simply saying not that your husband should be baptized and your children should be baptized, though unconverted, but rather that if you as a believer are living with a husband and children that are non-believers, the blessings that flow to you will spill over to them. There is no mention of baptism whatsoever.

So the bottom line is those would be the passages people would go to to try to defend the infant baptism biblically, and they just don’t work...just don’t work at all. The full counsel of God is either expressly set forth in Scripture, explicitly set forth in Scripture, or the full counsel of God can be necessarily compellingly and validly deduced by good and logical consequence. But it has to be necessary, compelling, inescapable, good, and logical consequence like the fact that though the Bible doesn’t mention the Trinity, that is clearly what the Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. There are no arguments for infant baptism explicitly and there are no arguments that are necessary, inescapable, clear and compelling from Scripture…none whatsoever.

So the first point to make is that infant baptism is not in the Bible. It’s not in the Bible. Infant baptism is not biblical.

Point two, infant baptism is not baptism…it’s not New Testament baptism. This may surprise you, it’s nothing, it’s totally meaningless. Well you might have got emotional when you took your little child in there ‘cause you love your little child and you hope the best for him, or her. But as far as the spiritual condition of that child, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever. Infant baptism is not in the Bible, it is not New Testament baptism. And this is an uncontestable fact because when you do go in to the Bible in the New Testament and you talk about baptism and you study baptism, it is absolutely crystal clear what baptism is. The only people who are ever baptized in the New Testament are people who have come to faith in Christ. And baptism is always immersing them in water, it is never sprinkling water on their heads from a tiny little fountain.

Two verbs express this reality, bapto and baptidzo. Those two verbs are used when baptism is referred to. They mean to immerse, to dip down. The noun, baptisma is always used in Acts to refer to a believer being immersed in the water. Sprinkling is a completely different word, rhantismos, completely different word, never used to describe a believer’s baptism in the New Testament, never. Even Calvin who baptized babies wrote, “The word baptize means to immerse. It is certain that immersion was the practice of the early church,” end quote.

This ordinance was so designed by God and conveyed by the correct, inspired words to fit the symbolism of the ordinance. Immersion is commanded of every believer as a picture, as an object lesson, as a symbol, as a visual analogy of a spiritual reality. It is the way that God designed to publicly declare the truth of personal salvation. What does it symbolize when a person is immersed, submerged? Clearly unmistakably throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is a picture of the union of a believer in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is clear from Romans 6, Galatians 2, Galatians 3, Colossians 2.

When you come to faith in Christ, you are placed into union with Christ. You are immersed into Him and therefore you are in Him in His death, His burial and His resurrection. Romans 6 makes that clear. “We were crucified with Him, buried with Him and we’ve risen with Him to walk in newness of life.” This is spiritually symbolized in water baptism. Immersion into water was and is the inseparable outward sign of a believer’s union with Jesus Christ. That’s why you go into all the world to preach the gospel to everybody, baptizing them…that’s the public confession of their union with Christ in a beautiful dramatic way. The only other ordinance ever given to the church is the Lord’s table. We can love the Lord, we can go to the cross, we can celebrate His death, we can rejoice in His death, we can seek forgiveness of sins, repent, confess without the Lord’s table but He’s told us to do that as a public declaration, a public proclamation, a visual remembrance of the cross. When we take that bread it’s His body, we drink that cup as a symbol of His blood, we understand that symbolism. That is true with baptism. You can make a confession of Christ, you can be a true believer and not be baptized. But you are being disobedient at that point, just as you are if you absent yourself from the Lord’s table because that is a way that the Lord has ordained for you to openly declare the union between yourself and Him in the great reality of His death, burial and resurrection.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two solemn acts which the Lord has appointed for His church and the church has the sacred duty to persevere and administer these precious institutions throughout its life. How horrible is it to imagine that people who believe in the true gospel would execute people for being baptized in the way they’re commanded to be baptized in Scripture. Horrible.

The significance of Baptism is unmistakably clear. In our day, an open solemn confession of the crucified risen Lord is necessary. All who experience the reality of the power of the risen Savior should give this public testimony to His glory as an act of obedience. In biblical Baptism in the New Testament manner, believers not only give testimony to their union with Christ…listen to this…they give testimony to their thoughtful, careful, submissive obedience to the holy Scripture in which nothing could be treated as unimportant.

Furthermore, in biblical Baptism, believers testify to a redeemed church. I’ll say more about that. We testify to a redeemed church, a church being made up only of those who have made that open and public confession because they are truly in union with Christ. By biblical Baptism, believers give fundamental rejection of all human regulations through which clear biblical teaching has been obscured or curtailed or supplanted. By biblical Baptism, the church signifies a public renunciation of the nominal and mass Christianity of these massive institutions. By biblical Baptism, the church calls for the reintroduction and practice of biblical New Testament church order and discipline.

This is very, very important. Every expression in the New Testament concerning Baptism assumes that the convert receives Christ, renounces former life, embraces Him as Lord and is willing and eager to make that public confession. That’s the true believer, and that leads to an understanding of the true church.

In every case of New Testament Baptism, true saving faith, personal salvation is presupposed. It can’t function in the case of infants. It is nothing more than a bizarre fabrication.

Thirdly, infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it’s not New Testament Baptism, and it is not, please, a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. One of the other things that Reformed people say is that infant Baptism takes the place of circumcision. I’ve heard that argument for years. So my response is, what verse says that? Where is it? Show me the verse. Where in the Bible does it say, by the way, Baptism is a replacement of circumcision? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that anywhere. That is a fairly large assumption. There are no cases of infant Baptism. There is no description of infant Baptism. There is no call for infant Baptism. And now you’re telling me we have to do it, it is mandated and this is what it means. And you’re telling me that it means something the Bible doesn’t say it means. How could the Bible say it means anything when the Bible doesn’t say anything about it?

These baby baptizers or paedo-Baptists as they’re often called, nonetheless, without scriptural support are left to some kind of inferential evidence based on supposed covenantal considerations. They say, “Well it replaces circumcision in the Old Testament. You know, it’s almost hard to argue against that because it’s just so totally off the wall. Since there’s nothing in the Bible that says that, why would they even conclude that?

Let me help you with circumcision for just…in a brief way. We don’t have time to talk a lot about it. Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, every one of them. It was a sign that they belonged to the people called the Jews. It was a sign that they belonged to the nation Israel. It was not a sign of salvation. Right? Not a sign of salvation. What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.” He even said in Romans 9, “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.” Most Jews are under divine judgment. They were in the past, they were a rebellious, apostate, idolatrous, unfaithful, disloyal nation. And among that entire nation of circumcised people, there was a small remnant that believed. Now follow me.

If you make infant Baptism the substitute sign for circumcision, does that mean then that we now have a church that is a false church, or a rebellious church, or an unbelieving church, or an apostate church but it’s still a church and somewhere in the middle there’s a remnant of true believers? You see, circumcision was only a sign that people belonged to an ethnic group, a group called Jews, a nation called Israel. It said nothing about their spiritual condition. Baptism is always tied to salvation. There’s no parallel. There’s no connection.

Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

But that is exactly what people believe who baptize babies. That in the same way every Jewish boy, and this doesn’t answer the question of what about the girls, was circumcised, every baby should be baptized as circumcised boys were then in the covenant community of Israel, circumcised boys are in the covenant of Israel, baptized babies enter into the covenant community of the church. And when I ask them, “What do you mean by that?” It gets really strange.

They don’t want to say, “Well, it just means you get external membership and rights and privileges, it’s like being in Israel ‘cause there is no such national identity, there’s no ethnic identity.” The only Baptism that the New Testament knows anything about is the Baptism of people who put their faith in Christ. And since infants haven’t done that, what does this mean?

Well, there are people who believe that it saves them. It saves them. And so they serve their babies paedo-communion. They put the bread in a cup in a blender and feed it to their infant. It’s called presumptive regeneration. That’s the viewpoint that if your baby has been baptized, your baby must be presumed to be regenerate. I’m regenerate. My wife, Patricia, is regenerate and I will promise you with our four children, it was easy to presume that they were not regenerate, from the very beginning. It would have been a well-nigh impossible to make the presumption that our children were regenerate and shirk the responsibility to bring them to the true knowledge of Christ.

There is no connection in the New Testament whatsoever in any way, shape or form between circumcision as a physical mark identifying an ethnic people, a kind act on God’s part to protect them for the sake of pro-generation. And also to demonstrate their depravity and their sinfulness. That is one thing and it ceased.

Paul even went so far as to say, “If you’re circumcised, grace is no more grace. You’ve abandoned Christ.” Circumcision never transfers itself into Baptism at all…at all. And if we say that all these baptized babies form a covenant community, then we’ve got a strange kind of hybrid in the church…follow this…we’ve got some kind of a church made up of baptized people who aren’t really converted. And that’s what I said at the very beginning. The world is full of millions of these baptized people. Where do they belong?

Let me tell you something. This gets really difficult for people in the Anglican Church, people in the Episcopalian Church, people in these denominations, even Protestant denominations do this…what state are these people in? Are they all going to go to heaven?

I was locked up in a room for seven hours as one of the most well-known Reformed theologians on the face of the earth. At the end of seven hours, they said okay. What do you have to believe to be a Christian? You say, “If you’re in the church, you’re in the community of faith and you’re okay. What do you have to believe to be a true Christian, to which he replied, “That’s a good question,” and wouldn’t give me an answer. That comes right out of that kind of concept. There’s this idea that they’re sort of federally included. It gets to the point where salvation is a collected thing and you get into the collected saved group by infant Baptism.

How this could survive in a Reformed community where people hold on to the doctrine of justification by faith and all the solas is hard to understand. But eventually what it will do, it will eat away at the doctrine of justification and the people who are now coming out bold and strong for this kind of collective salvation, N.T. Wright and others, all the way down to many others in many forms. There’s sort of this collective community of believing people brought in by Baptism will eventually jettison the true doctrine of justification by faith and individual personal salvation.

It does matter what you believe about this. It matters a lot because it confounds, and this is the fourth thing I want to say, it confounds the nature of the church. Infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it is not New Testament baptism, it is not the New Testament equivalent to circumcision. And infant Baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. Infant Baptism confuses hopelessly the church. You can’t distinguish between believer and non-believer. The local church becomes the true church. The baptized become the church. Paedo-Baptism, to say it another way, destroys the reality of a regenerate church.

You’d be amazed how many people who are clear-minded on the doctrine of justification have an ecclesiology that’s completely confused. Who’s a Christian? A baptized person? Is that a true child of God? Is that a true church? Is that a true church but a weak true church? And are we who are true believers sort of the pure in the midst of the impure, but all a part of the church. Again, the world is full of baptized people who are indifferent, blasphemous, haters of Christianity, not in the church at all, no interest in it.

What are we to think of them? What are they? To be in the church, you must put your trust in Christ. At the beginning, when Luther sort of led the Reformation, he had a lofty idealism, some writers say. He was contending for Christianity that would embrace freedom and renounce force and live only by the Word of God and by the Spirit of God. To him, in the early days, as to us, the Scripture was the only standard for all issues of personal life, including the issue of Baptism. Let me quote Luther.

“I say that God wants no compulsory service. I say it a hundred-thousand times. God wants no compulsory service, no one can or ought to be compelled to believe for the soul of a man is an eternal thing, above all that is temporal. Therefore only by an eternal word must it be governed and grasped for it is simply insulting to govern in God’s presence with human law and custom, neither the Pope nor a Bishop nor any other man has the right to decree a single syllable concerning a Christian, apart from his consent. All that comes to pass otherwise comes to pass in the spirit of tyranny,” end quote.

You can’t force anything on any one, superimpose on them some required religious duty, not in Scripture. That’s how Luther started. However, by 1527 he turned back to the state church because he was afraid he needed to maintain oneness of doctrine in order to maintain solidarity and power, political military power. So as it had through the Dark Ages from the fourth century on, the church became buried in the state church and essentially the state church extinguished the true church.

It didn’t take long for the true church in Europe to just disappear altogether. Infant Baptism served the state power and eventually obliterated the true church. The only way you know what the true church is, is by personal faith in Christ. The testimony to that is given in Baptism.

Oh I could say more about that, but our time is gone. So I think I have one more here and I’ll just make this brief. Infant Baptism is not consistent with Reformation soteriology…not consistent with Reformation soteriology. What do I mean by that?

The Reformers rediscovered the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone…the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of imputation, that our sins are placed on Christ in His death, and His righteousness is given to us. This is imputation. This is the great doctrine. Faith alone is the condition by which salvation is received, faith alone…faith alone.

Here is the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, seventy-fourth question, “Shall one baptize young children also? Yes, for they, as well as the old people, appertain to the covenant of God in His church and in the blood of Christ the redemption from sins and the Holy Spirit who works faith has promised not less than to the older.” Baptize them because they’re promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.

“Therefore shall they also through Baptism as the sign of the Covenant be incorporated in the Christian church and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as in the Old Testament took place by circumcision.” See, they’ve got this confounding connection to circumcision. “And now they’re placing them in the Christian church, bringing them under the blood of Christ, the redemption from sin, the work of the Spirit who produces faith and it’s promised to them in the same way that it’s promised to older people.”

That’s Lutheran. That’s out of the heritage of Luther. Luther finally wound up having to defend the fact that infants have faith. He said, “The Anabaptists are right, the Baptism without faith profits nothing, and that thus in fact children ought not to be baptized if they have no faith.” We agree with that. Luther said, “The Lord says most decidedly, ‘He who believes not shall be damned. But the assertion of the Anabaptists is false, the children cannot believe. If children are to be baptized, they must be able to believe, they must have faith,” end quote.

How could a child have faith? With Luther, it was the vicarious faith of the parents or the godparents. That’s where godparents came from, surrogate parents whose faith would intercede on behalf of the child. With Luther, vicarious faith of the parents or the godparents wasn’t enough. He even went further and said, “The children themselves must believe. If one asks how is that possible? One receives the answer, the Holy Spirit helps them to believe. The Holy Spirit comes to the children in the holy Baptism by this bath of regeneration He has richly poured out on them.”

Martin Luther? Who discovered salvation by grace alone, through faith alone and Christ alone? Some even called it unconscious faith. So there were those who were holding to surrogate faith on the part of parents and godparents…that wasn’t enough for Luther.

The great mark of the Reformation was justification…justification not by sacrament, not by ceremony, not by symbol. Justification by faith through grace, how could they understand that and then come up with something like infant Baptism which by a rite on a baby confers to that baby salvation? Infant Baptism is nothing, 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. You know, the Reformers cry wasn’t tradition, tradition, tradition. It wasn’t the fathers, the fathers, the fathers. What was it? We read it earlier? Scripture, Scripture, Scripture. We believe what we believe because that’s what Scripture teaches. Well, that’s enough for the night. Let’s pray.

Father, we thank You for Your Word again. We don’t try to pick a fight with people for the sake of antagonism, but of necessity we need to speak the truth and make the truth clear, unmistakable as it’s revealed in Your Word. This devilish conduct of infant Baptism has survived through two thousand years of church life from very early on, the third century, embedded in the fourth and still here. We could only ask, Lord, that the Reformation would be a complete Reformation. There would be no confusion about the true church. This is so important that we know who the true church is…that people not be confused. People not think they’re saved because they received some rite as an infant, parents not think they’re children are saved because of that. Help us to be faithful to the truth, proclaim the gospel. And those who believe, may we be faithful to be obedient and be baptized and make that profession of faith, confessing You before men that we might be confessed by You before Your Father who is in heaven. Thank You for a wonderful day and this wonderful church, great fellowship. Now as we spend some time together, enrich that time and bless every person who is here with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, we pray in His name. Everybody said…Amen…Amen.