7th-Day Adventists and Hell

Seventh-Day Adventism cultists believe that there is no such thing as an eternal hell. They claim that you simply perish and cease to exist. They argue that an eternal hell is unreasonable and claim that "the punishment must fit the crime committed." So let us examine their argument and see if it holds any water. Here are two examples:

1. If you step on a bug, nothing will happen to you. If you shoot some homeless bum on the street, you'll do some time in prison. If you fly to Washington and assassinate the President, you'll be going away for life, if not sentenced to death immediately. What changed? Same crime, different punishment. The thing that changed is against whom the crime was committed.
2. If you lie to your child, there's nothing he/she can do about it. If you lie to your spouse, you'll be sleeping on the couch. If you lie to your boss, you'll be fired. If you lie to the government, that's called treason and you'll be imprisoned for it. What changed? Same crime, different punishment. The thing that changed is against whom the crime was committed.

How does their "the punishment must fit the crime committed" theory look now? Rather foolish, would you not agree? The reason why eternal hell is reasonable and just is because of Whom your crimes are committed against. Your crimes are committed against an infinitely holy and righteous God. Therefore, an infinite punishment is a reasonable and just response. The SDA's problem, like most modern men, is that they think man is basically good and that his sins are no big deal, even though the Bible says they are a huge deal to God. They downplay just how serious their sins are against God and in the sight of God. They call them "mistakes," but God calls them more than this. Their very offense is a stench in His nostrils. They were created in His image and every time they sin they are telling creation that that is what God is like. And they think their sin is "no big deal"?

Further, they commit the error of assuming that the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is a parable. It is not a parable! A parable is a figure of speech using "like," "as," or "than" for comparison. This story uses an actual person's name, which Jesus' parables also never did. The story clearly says, "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment" (v.23). The SDA have a serious expositional problem on their hands. If the Greek word "hades" (αδου) merely refers to the grave, how can an individual have consciousness, as is clearly demonstrated here, and also be "in torment"? If it is merely a grave, how does torment tie in with it?

For argument's sake, let us assume that this is a parable. A parable uses an illustration in order to convey a truth of reality. Examine Matthew 13. See how Jesus interprets His own parable regarding the wheat and the tares? If this is a parable, what truth of reality is it conveying for us? The SDA will stumble and trip all over this trying to explain it away because they have no answer.

Furthermore, the following passages are pretty self-explanatory in regard to hell. Remember, Jesus spoke twice as much about hell than He did about heaven.

"And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell (γεενναν), into the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43)
"where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED" (Mark 9:44, cf. Isaiah 66:16)
"And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell (γεενναν)" (Mark 9:45)
"where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED" (Mark 9:46, cf. Isaiah 66:16)
"And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell (γεενναν)" (Mark 9:47)
"where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED" (Mark 9:48, cf. Isaiah 66:16)

"but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12)
"and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:42)
"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:13)
"and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51)
"And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30)
"There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out" (Luke 13:28)

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46)
"And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
"of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Hebrews 6:2)
"These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved" (2 Peter 2:17)
"wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever" (Jude 1:13)
"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone" (Revelation 19:20)
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10)
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8)

Finally, if hell is not eternal, and the punishment of the wicked, then how do the SDA explain away this verse, which sets an iron-clad case against their heretical false teachings?

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name" (Revelation 14:11)

As you can see, the cultic Seventh-Day Adventist's theory does not hold any water. It leaks like a colander. Their lies are no match for good exegetical and expository study of the truth. Seventh-Day Adventists are no different than Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Dispensationists. With the exception of Catholicism, all these cults have their beginning in the 19th century. But like Catholicism does with traditions, the SDA elevate a false prophet (Ellen White) to be equal to or greater than Scripture. They worship a false god and a false Jesus.

Hades (αδης)	Gehenna (γεεννα)
Matt. 11:23 Matt. 16:18 Luke 10:15 Luke 16:23 Acts 2:27, 31 1 Cor. 15:55 Rev. 1:18 Rev. 6:8 Rev. 20:13-14	Matt. 5:22, 29-30 Matt. 10:28 Matt. 18:9 Matt. 23:15, 33 Mark 9:43, 45 Luke 12:5 James 3:6

"Hades never denotes the physical grave nor is it the permanent region of the lost. It is the intermediate state between death and the ultimate hell, Gehenna. Christ declares that he has the keys of Hades (Rev. 1:18). In Rev. 6:8 it is personified with the meaning of the temporary destiny of the doomed; it is to give up those who are in it (Rev. 20:13), and is to be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)." (The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p.82)

"Gehenna is conceived of as a fire (Matt. 5:22; 18:9); an unquenchable fire (Mark 9:45); a place where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48); a "furnace of fire" (Matt. 13:42, 50); "the outer darkness" (Matt. 8:12; 2:13; 25:30); a "lake of fire" (Rev. 19:20; 20:20, 14-15; 21:8)." (Ibid., p.361)

Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the terms "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever" do not mean what they say. With regard to "forever," they claim that it means "until the end of the age," for a limited time. However, that is not what Revelation 14:11 states. It uses the Greek word aion (αιων), and literally means "for ages and ages." In other words, for all eternity.

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8).
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels'" (Matthew 25:41).
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).
"And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
"of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Hebrews 6:2).

"Eternal" and "everlasting" come from the Greek word aionios (αιωνιος), which means perpetual, eternal, forever, everlasting. But the SDA deny this. They claim that these words refer to a specific period of limited time, and that they speak of eternal "consequences" and eternal "ramifications." If there is nothing eternal about the punishment of the wicked, then clearly and logically, via common sense, there is no such thing as eternal consequences or ramifications. If this word, in relation to punishment, has nothing to do with endless time throughout eternity, then neither does it in relation to life. How they argue it in regard to punishment must by necessity be similarly argued in regard to life. When the Bible speaks of eternal life, it uses the same Greek word. So if "eternal punishment" is merely a limited period of time, so then is "eternal life." But the SDA fail to apply simple logic in this argument of theirs.

Further, they claim that "punishment" is not a verb, and therefore is not an ongoing thing. However, anyone who understands the English language knows that there are words that are both nouns and verbs, and words that as nouns refer to the act of the verb. In this case, it is the later. Any dictionary will inform you of such. "Punishment" refers to "the act of punishing." The modifier determines what kind of punishment it is. Therefore, "eternal punishment" refers to the act of eternally punishing. The word "rule" is both a noun and a verb. The term "eternal rule" would refer to the act of ruling eternally. It is pretty simple to figure out. However, the SDA like to make up foolish arguments in favour of their false teachings, but fail to follow them through logically to their full conclusion.

The SDA will often quote foolish statements made by others in an attempt to use them as prooftexts to support their agenda. In this case, they quote a quotation from John Stott as if it is the Gospel truth on the matter, simply because Stott makes an assumption that perhaps annihilationism is true. Because they have a quote for it, they make a big deal out of it as if it is the end-all be-all of biblical truth. They do the same thing in regard to their false teaching that Sunday is the mark of the beast. They quote the Catholic Record from 1923, which says, "Sunday is our mark of authority..... The church is above the Bible, and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact," and run with it as if it is the Gospel truth. They even try quoting from Constantine, and do so erroneously. Constantine did not institute Sunday worship, he legalized it. What the SDA fail to realize or understand is that Sunday worship was in effect long before the Catholic church ever came on the scene in the 500's A.D. Sunday worship was in effect before and after 70 A.D. Acts 20:1-7 is proof positive (see Seventh-Day Adventism) for Sunday worship. Communion, preaching (Acts 20:7) and tithing (1 Corinthians 16:2) all took place on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Just because the Catholic church claims to have initiated it does not make that claim true. The SDA's authority is not the Bible, as they claim, but every other source that agrees in some pretense with what they already believe (such as the above examples).

Hell is a real, literal, and eternal reality. Those who deny it will find out soon enough just how real it is. Jesus spoke about hell twice as much as He spoke about heaven.

Seventh-Day Adventism

Seventh-Day Adventists insist that we ought to keep the Sabbath. Are they right? When I have discussed this subject with them, I have often been told to pray about it. That sounds just like the Mormons telling you to pray about the Book of Mormon. If something is false, I do not need to pray about it. But let us look and see what Scripture reveals to us.

Look up the word "sabbath" outside of the Gospels and you will find that it occurs 11 times. 9 of them are in the book of Acts, which is a transitional book. The last two are in the evidences against Sabbath keeping: Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 4:9. The first one in Acts is a descriptor—"Sabbath day's journey." Acts 13:14 says that they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath and sat down. In verse 27, they are reasoning with them, telling them that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fulfilled the prophets, whom they read every Sabbath, by condemning Jesus. Verse 42, they asked that they might be reasoned with the next Sabbath. Verse 44, they were gathered to hear the words of God—by the Apostles reasoning with them. Acts 15:21 is again a condemnation against them, saying that their reading of Moses on the Sabbath preached Christ. Acts 16:13, they went to a place where there was a meeting of women and reasoned with them. Acts 17:2 and 18:4, they again were reasoning with the Jews. There is not one reference to worshiping on the Sabbath or observing it. They were commanded to begin in Jerusalem and go into the entire world preaching the Gospel. The Jews gathered in the synagogues to read from Moses and the prophets every Sabbath. What better time to reason with them than when they open the Scriptures that preached Christ?

Exodus 31 clearly states that the Sabbath was "a sign forever between [God] and the people of Israel." The Israel in question here is national Israel, not spiritual Israel. Paul says in Colossians 2:16, "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of...or with regard to...a Sabbath" and continues in verse 17, "They are a shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Hebrews 3:7-4:13 speak of the rest for God's people, which are the Christians. It says in 4:3, "We who have believed enter that rest." In verse 9 it says, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" and in verse 10 states, "For whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from His." Again, refer to verse 3. When we are born again, we enter that rest because Christ Jesus is the Christian's Sabbath. Every day is a day of rest in Christ for the Christian. If you want to dedicate any day of the week toward worship, you are free to do so.

As for Sunday, the SDA ignore Scripture and try to place the Christian under the Old Covenant. The fact is, 9 of the 10 commandments were repeated in the New Testament. The 4th was not repeated. Why do you suppose that is? Let us look at their reiteration:

1.  To worship the Lord God only (1st commandment): no less than 50 times (Matt. 2:2; 2:8; 2:11; 4:9; 4:10; 14:22; 15:9; 28:9; 28:17; Mark 7:7; Luke 4:7; 4:8; 24:52: John 4:20, 21, 22 (x2), 23, 24 (x2); 9:38; 12:20; Acts 7:43; 8:27; 16:14; 17:23 (x2); 18:7; 18:13; 19:27; 24:11; Rom. 1:25; 12:1; 1 Cor. 14:25; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:18; Heb. 1:6; 9:1; 9:6; 10:2; 11:21; Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8; 22:9).
2. Idolatry (2nd commandment) condemned 20 times (Acts 18:20, 29; Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 6:9; chapter 8; 10:7, 14; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Thess. 1:9; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5; 1 Pet. 4:3; 1 John 5:21; Rev. 2:14, 20; 9:20; 21:8; 22:15).
3. Profanity (3rd commandment) condemned 4 times (Matt. 12:36; Eph. 5:4; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 16:9).
4. Honoring Parents (5th commandment) is taught 6 times (Matt. 15:5; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2).
5. Murder (6th commandment) condemned 7 times (Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 1:29; 13:9; Eph. 4:28).
6. Adultery (7th commandment) condemned 12 times (Matt. 5:27, 28, 32; 19:9, 18; Mark 10:11, 19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11; 2 Pet. 2:14).
7. Theft (8th commandment) condemned 6 times (Matt. 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 2:21; 13:9; Eph. 4:28).
8. False witness (9th commandment) condemned 4 times (Matt. 15:9; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20).
9. Covetousness (10th commandment) condemned 10 times (Mark 7:22; Luke 12:15; Rom. 1:28; 7:7: 13:9; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; Heb. 13:5; 2 Pet. 2:14).

The SDA argue that they want evidence with regard to Sunday. Apart from the evidence regarding "sabbath" as stated above, in Acts 20:7 it says, "On the first day of the week...," which is Sunday, they were gathered together to break bread (communion) and have Paul speak to them (preaching). Some individuals of the SDA will point out that this was the first day of the week at night, which would be Saturday night. From there they try to argue Sabbath keeping. However, they tend to confuse the Sabbath, which was to be kept from sunset to sunset (Lev. 23:32), with our Saturday, which is midnight to midnight. The Sabbath was from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Saturday evening to Sunday evening was the first day of the week. Therefore, their argument falls apart because of its weak foundation.  1 Corinthians 16:2 says, "On the first day of every week...," which is every Sunday, you should put aside some money (tithing). Revelation 1:10 says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Which day would that be? The Lord is Christ Jesus. He rose from the grave on the first day of the week. Therefore, the Lord's day is obviously Sunday. Worship on Sunday commemorates and celebrates the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. Worship is clearly identified with the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, Sunday, as I have shown from Scripture.

Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). Read through the New Testament and count the number of times that He shut the Pharisees up who were complaining about Him and His disciples not keeping the Sabbath. His disciples eating the grains of wheat, His healing the crippled man, etc., etc. The SDA claims that Jesus kept the Sabbath. When? Where? We see the Pharisees constantly torqued with Jesus because He and His disciples were not keeping the Sabbath (John 9:15). He told them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John 5:17). God rested once, after He finished creation; not continually. Was the day that God rested the Sabbath? No, it was not! Where in Scripture does it teach such a thing? It does not! The command to keep the Sabbath holy was not given until the Exodus. No one prior to the Exodus was commanded to keep the Sabbath. Jesus also said that "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark. 2:27). The Pharisees keeping thereof had made man for the Sabbath. Jesus said, "No! I am the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man." He is that Sabbath rest, and believers have entered into it. "I died to the Law" (Gal. 2:19). "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal. 5:18). "...abolishing the law of commandments..." (Eph. 2:15). "Canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he sat aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14).

If Sabbath keeping is so important for the disciple of Christ, why was it not mentioned in His sermon on the mount or any of His teachings? Why did Jesus not command Sabbath keeping? Why did the Apostles not command Sabbath keeping? Why did the Jerusalem counsel not command Sabbath keeping (Acts 15)? Why was Sabbath keeping not commanded to anyone prior to the Exodus? Read Matthew 12:1-14 carefully. Jesus is clearly saying that His disciples are like the priests who may work in the temple every Sabbath and be innocent of breaking the Sabbath. When Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath" He is declaring that He is above the Sabbath. He may do what He wishes on the Sabbath and therefore His disciples may do whatever they wish as well.

Furthermore, there is not a single individual alive today who knows for sure when exactly the Sabbath is. First of all, the Jewish calendar is nothing like ours. It continually changes. Second of all, in 1582, Gregory XIII found a miscalculation in the calendar and decreed to drop October 5-14 (10 days) and to drop 3 leap years in every century. In England, 11 days (September 3-13) were dropped in 1752 (in addition to other changes). If you drop all these days, when does the Sabbath truly occur? For all we know, our Wednesday could be the Sabbath. This evidence just goes to prove how ridiculous this argument of theirs is. Even if you could figure out when the exact Sabbath is, it does not change all the other facts that we have looked at and will look at in this article.

The SDA fail to understand what the Sabbath was all about. They consider "keeping the Sabbath" to merely be about "worshiping" on the Sabbath. There was no eating out allowed on the Sabbath. God commanded how it was to be observed: It was to be kept from sunset to sunset (Lev. 23:32); no burden was to be carried (Jer. 17:21); no fire kindled (Ex. 35:3); no cooking done (Ex. 16:23); the penalty for doing any of these things during the Sabbath was death (Num. 15). Is this what the SDA want us to do? Furthermore, if the SDA is going to argue for Sabbath keeping, then they had best keep all of the Sabbaths. The Sabbath was not merely "Saturday" (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday). They had weekly Sabbaths, monthly Sabbaths, yearly Sabbaths... If the SDA cannot even keep the first commandment perfectly, why do they attempt to try and force Christians to keep the fourth commandment? They fail to understand what Jesus said, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'  This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF'" (Matt. 22:37-39; Mark 12:29-31) and what Paul said, "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom. 13:8-10).

The SDA frequently quote foolish statements made by others in an attempt to use them as prooftexts to support their agenda. With regard to their false teaching that Sunday is the mark of the beast, they quote the Catholic Record from 1923, which says, "Sunday is our mark of authority..... The church is above the Bible, and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact," and run with it as if it is the Gospel truth. They also quote from The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, which reads:

Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
Q. Which is the Sabbath Day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.

They even try quoting from Constantine, and do so erroneously. Constantine did not institute Sunday worship, he merely legalized it. His edict reads as follows: “On the venerable Day of The Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits.”

What the SDA fail to realize or understand is that Sunday worship was in effect long before the Catholic church ever came into power in 538 A.D. The spirit of the Catholic church may have been at work as early as the 300's A.D., but that does not negate the fact that Sunday gathering and worship was already long in place. Sunday worship was in effect before 70 A.D. Acts 20:1-7 is proof positive for Sunday worship. Communion, preaching (Acts 20:7) and tithing (1 Corinthians 16:2) all took place on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Just because the Catholic church claims to have initiated it does not make that claim true. The SDA's authority is not the Bible, as they claim, but rather every other source that agrees in some pretense with what they already believe (such as the above examples).

The Apostle John wrote his epistles well after 70 A.D. If there was error with regard to keeping the Sabbath, he would have wrote to correct it. However, he did no such thing. Less than 10 years after John’s death, the epistle of Barnabas recorded, “Wherefore, also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (100 A.D.). In 107 A.D., the epistle of Ignatius read, “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish Law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace....If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and By His death.” The writings of Justin Martyr between 145 and 150 A.D. read, “And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read....But Sunday is the day on which we all hold a common assembly, because it is the first day of the week on which God...made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the direct disciple of the Apostle John, wrote between 155 to 202 A.D., “The Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast.” There are plenty more early church fathers whom we can consult to verify the fact that Christians gathered together on Sunday in order to commemorate and celebrate the Lord’s resurrection.

Let us be realistic here. The SDA was first developed in the 1800's along with several other cults such as Dispensationalism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Darwinism, Communism... Shall I continue? According to the SDA, the church was without truth for 1800 years and God, in all His great wisdom and providence, deliberately left His church languished and without truth for 1800 years. That means that all the great minds the church has ever produced were wrong in their theology until the SDA came along to correct them. Sorry, but I do not buy it. Especially considering the fact that Ellen G. White is a false prophet/teacher. Nothing she did or said is or was or will ever be equal or greater than Scripture, as I have seen the SDA teach. This is different from Catholocism how? Watch this video by a former SDA who came out of it and speaks on the spirit (not the Spirit) of the movement. Are all SDA churches the same? Clearly not! But the majority, yes.

Defending Your Faith, Part 4

Continued from last...

Another argument that may arise from the “intellectual” mocker is that the Bible is nothing more than the result of the “telephone game.” These people obviously have never examined a wide variety of Bibles and their translations. Let us look at a couple:
Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middaneard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."
Wycliff (1380): "For god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif."
Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
Geneva (1557): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"
King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
KJV (1769): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Darby’s Translation (1890): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal."
NASB (1971): “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
NIV (1973): "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
NKJV (1982): "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
ESV (2002): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”b
Spanish Bible (RVR 1865): “Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que haya dado a su Hijo unigénito; para que todo aquel que en él creyere, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.”
Spanish Bible (RVR 1960): “Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado á su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.”
Spanish Bible (RVR 2004): “Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado a su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en Él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.”
Spanish Bible (RVR Actualizada): “Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado a su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en él cree no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.”

Defending Your Faith, Part 3

Continued from last...

Third, science, history and archeology continually prove the authenticity of the Bible. For years it was believed that the Bible was in error and that there was no such thing as the Hittites. That was until archeology discovered their capital city and found their records. The Bible is the only book that hangs its credibility on its ability to write history in advance – without any error. Let us now look at a few proofs from science. Years ago, this is what “science” believed (because it didn’t trust the Bible):

1. the earth was flat
2. only 1,100 stars
3. earth sat on a large animal
4. science was ignorant on the subject of invisible elements in creation
5. all stars were the same
6. light was fixed in a place
7. air was weightless
8. winds blew straight
9. sick people must be bled (This is how one of the Presidents died.)
10. the ocean floor was flat
11. oceans fed only by rivers and rain
12. hands washed in still water

This is what science knows today (and the passage of Scripture it is found in):

1. the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2. incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3. free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
4. creation made of invisible elements – atoms (Hebrews 11:3)
5. each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
6. light moves (Job 38:19-20)
7. air has weight (Job 28:25)
8. winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
9. blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
10. ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
11. ocean contains springs (Job 38:6)
12. when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

Bear in mind that parts of the Bible were written 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. When you begin quoting this information to the “intellectual,” do you think he will be interested in debating more “science” versus true science and the Bible? You could confidently challenge your mockers that if they can prove intelligent design to be wrong, that you’ll award them with $10,000 (Kent Hovind offers $250,000). They will never prove it.

Let us look at some more true scientific facts. They are as follows:

• the sun burns off tons of gas every day – If you look up the rate at which the sun is burning off gas per day and multiply it not even by 1 million years, at one point the sun was so big that it would have touched the Earth. Therefore, the dinosaurs fried to death.
• the moon is moving away from the Earth – If you take the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth and multiply it not even by 1 million years, at one point the moon was just hovering over the face of the Earth. Therefore, the dinosaurs got mooned. If you half the distance, you quadruple the effect. The Earth would have been flooded twice a day because of the moon’s effects.
• the Earth is slowing down – If you take the rate at which the Earth is slowing down and multiply it not even by 1 million years, at one time the Earth would have been spinning at a tremendous rate. Therefore, the dinosaurs were thrown off into space. One person tried telling me that gravity would have been increased. No, it would not have. Tell them to study a merry-go-round. The faster that thing is going, you do not get sucked to the center. You are thrown off. You can learn some great science from a merry-go-round.

A further example of true science you can mention is the fact that the nucleus has the properties of expulsion. It pushes outward. Yet, everything in creation is held together. Why is that? Scientists cannot answer why that is. “In Him all things hold together” Colossians 1:17.
You see, the facts are simple. It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does for the Christian to believe in God. Even a child recognizes there is a Creator. Creation is God’s great big cosmic “Duh!” The evidence is overwhelming in support of creation and the existence of God. There is zero evidence to support evolution (unless speaking of micro-evolution – changes within a kind; i.e. Chihuahua, Doberman and Poodle are all one kind of animal). Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species, while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Macro-evolution has never been observed. It is a myth. A giraffe has never given birth to a flamingo, nor can you breed a dog and a cat together. Animals reproduce after their own kind. If the Earth were millions of years old and if evolution had a shred of truth to it, we would find thousands of fossil remains for transitional species (a mouse turning into an elephant). Yet, there is not even one! There has never been a single entity found in transition. According to Darwinian evolution, bananas and dogs have the same ancestor. Yet Darwin admitted, “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

To be continued...

Defending Your Faith, Part 2

Continued from last...

Charles Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory absolutely breaks down.” Let us put his theory to the test, then, with some questions for the Evolutionist:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Carl Sagan said, “Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular biology.” Yet here are some quotes from other Evolutionists:
“I will lay it on the line, there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” –Dr. Colin Patterson
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith
“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” –David Raup
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –Stephen J. Gould
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” –G. Richard Bozarth

That last quote is the crux of the issue. Anyone who can believe in Theistic Evolution is sadly deceived and does not understand the issue at stake here. It is all about Jesus Christ. It is His story. Evolution’s goal, as every other philosophy of man, is to kill God. Do not lose sight of this fact.

To be continued...

Defending Your Faith, Part 1

“Contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” This is the order we are issued from Jude 3. Are you aware of how to defend your faith? Can you stand before the so-called intellectual masses and mockers with courage and strengthened resolve because you have the Truth? Most people are worried that they do not know their Bibles well enough and often become intimidated when issues of “science” are brought to the field. This article is designed to give you the confidence to defend your faith and the information to do it with. It does not contain all the information we could use but it contains enough for you to cause the mockers to stop and consider.

First, are you aware that the Bible is supernatural in origin? It consists of 66 books that were written over a time period of 4,000 years by more than 40 authors, inspired by God, who never knew each other. The central theme is the same throughout—Jesus Christ. Every word from beginning to end agrees with every other word. There are no contradictions in Scripture whatsoever. There are only apparent contradictions to the unlearned’s eyes. Anyone willing to study it out will prove themselves in error. Both biblical and secular histories agree, for anyone who dares look into it.

Second, there is no such thing as an atheist. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Psalm 14:1 and 53:1. In order to be an atheist the person would have to know everything about everything. They do not even know half of everything. Ask them how many hairs are on the back of a Tibetan yak. Ask them how many grains of sand are on the combined islands of Hawaii. They would have to admit that they are agnostics (a meaning “no” and gnosis meaning “knowledge”), because they don’t know if there is a God. However, their own conscience (con meaning “with” and science meaning “knowledge”) bares them witness as does all of the universe around them (i.e. newborn babies). If there is a building, though they do not know who the builder is, it is logical (yes, most people don’t study logic anymore) to state it had a builder. If there is a painting, though they do not know who painted it, it is logical to state it had a painter. If there is a creation, though they do not know Who created it, it is logical to state it has a Creator.
What would they think if you told them that the car they drive was not made; that it simply formed that way out of a pile of metal over a period of millions of years? They would call you crazy, right? You would be insulting their intelligence. The fact of the matter is that evolution is a religion. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in it than it does for a Christian to believe in God. Let us look further at the beliefs behind the Evolution Theory. The text books tell us that “billions” of years ago there was nothing. They state nothing means nothing (Did you catch that?). Then they tell us that all the dust and dirt in the galaxy came together to form a ball smaller than a period on our page. Next, it tells us that the ball began spinning faster and faster until it exploded. Thus, we have our universe.
1st question: Where did all the dirt and dust come from? Nothing means nothing, remember?
2nd question: What made it come together? Who created gravity? Where did the laws that govern our universe come from and why aren’t they evolving?
3rd question: How is it that we have planets spinning backwards and moons spinning and traveling backwards? Anyone who has studied true science knows that from an object in motion, any pieces that fall off that object will continue spinning in the same direction until they encounter resistance. Remember, nothing means nothing. Therefore, they could not bump into each other because the further out the pieces got, the farther apart they would be from each other.

To be continued...

Why Christians Are Afraid To Study God's Word

I have come to realize that most Christians avoid studying a given subject or matter because they are afraid that their views will not be confirmed. Most believers, if they ever get around to "manning up" and studying as they are commanded to, will come to find that their hearts sink as they realize that their views are being challenged by the very Scriptures themselves. When this is the case, they are presented with one of two options: (1) change your beliefs and conform them to the truths that Scripture has revealed, (2) rebel in disobedience and deny the revealed truths in favour of your pre-suppositions, traditions, and personal feelings.

Most believers' hearts will sink because they do not study God's Word with joy, seeking His truth above all else so that they may conform their lives to it. They fail to realize that our primary obligation is to be faithful to God and His Word. Instead, they would rather be faithful to how they were raised and what they were taught.

Many years ago I began praying a prayer, and I continue to pray that prayer to this very day. I continually ask God to reveal His truth to me and to conform me to His Word over and above how I was raised and anything I was taught. In the last 7 years or so, God has been challenging me on a number of subjects:

• What I believed about the end times (the so-called Rapture, 7-year Great Tribulation, man called Anti-Christ, and future Millennial Kingdom);
• Marriage and its sacredness: the fact that Scripture calls re-marriage after divorce adultery;
• The fact that Jesus did not die and shed His blood for each and every individual that has ever lived, but only for those chosen in Christ from before the foundations of the world and given to Him by the Father;
• The fact that Romans 7 is not a Christian, but a man under the condemnation of the Law, because Romans 8 is the everyday Christian experience;
• The non-cessation of the spiritual gifts; and
• Infant baptism

When I study these subjects and doctrinal controversies, I do so with joy because I want to conform myself to God's scriptural truths. I want to know my God better and to believe rightly. Scripture says that we will be held accountable for what we believed.

I have no doubt that there are other areas of my faith that God desires to challenge me on and strengthen me in. When we study these subjects for ourselves, and conform ourselves to the truths revealed, it builds a solid foundation beneath us that cannot easily be shaken. Our faith becomes real to us, rather than being mere head knowledge that has never reached our hearts. When our faith is in our heads only, it is not acted out in our lives and we merely parrot it rather than believe it. When our faith is deeply rooted in our hearts, it is acted out in every part of our lives for the entire world to see, and we believe it steadfastly.

Am I therefore better than other Christians I know who do not do the things I do? Not in the least! Perhaps some of them think that is how I see myself, but if they could see into my heart they would see my daily struggles pertaining to my standing before God. They would see me constantly examining myself and examining my beliefs to make sure they agree with Scripture. It is said that "ignorance is bliss," and sometimes I think people believe that wholeheartedly. They prefer to be ignorant so that they do not have to deal with many important issues. This pertains not only to biblical things but also to life in general.

To not want to address controversial subjects and study the truth behind them is to be a coward, and the Bible says that the cowardly will be cast into hell. It is not being willing to stand up and defend God's truths. It is wanting to seek unity with false gospels, false doctrines, and false teachers at the precious cost of the truth. When we would rather be united with others who believe drastically different from us rather than to defend the truth as set forth in God's Word, we are treading dangerously on deadly ground and spitting on that precious blood that offers us freedom in the truth and esteems truth highly above all else.

Jesus did not seek unity with the Pharisees and the errors that they taught. He cast Himself against them in defense of the truth. If we seek unity rather than truth, we have already cast ourselves in opposition to Christ. Jesus said He came to set families against each other, and that unless we denounce ourselves, forsake everything and follow Him, we will never see life. To seek unity with others who believe drastically and heretically different from what Scripture reveals is to love the world. It is to reject Christ. How? Because you are not willing to forsake such friendships, etc., for the cause of Christ.

If someone teaches something that is not substantiated in or by Scripture, since Scripture only has one interpretation, that person is teaching something that is false. If it is false, then it is a lie. If it is a lie, then it clearly is not the truth. Call it heresy if you wish, but if what they teach is a false interpretation of Scripture (such as Dispensationalism), then what they teach is a bold-faced lie. On that note, ponder promptly and heavily.

Personally, I do not care what others think. If I stand alone for Christ against the rest of the world, then so be it. If family and friends reject me, then so be it. If brothers and sisters in the faith despise me, then so be it. Christ is where my treasure is, and I will fight to defend biblical truth until my dying breath. I may not always present it in the best way, and I may not be as gracious and loving as I ought to be and would like to be, but I am not going to roll over and let truth be trampled on by men and women who desire to have their ears tickled and do what is right in their own eyes. I have the fortitude to stand up for what I believe in and challenge everyone who stands in opposition to the truth. I will not succumb to false religions and false "Christianities" for the sake of "tolerance" and "unity" so called. The Bible is chock full of individuals who stood for truth against error with everyone else against them. Elijah and the prophets of Baal, for example. I know in Whom I have believed, and He is worthy to be pursued in truth.

"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Covenant Households

First section by Randy Booth

In our modern era, overly individualistic concepts of God's redemptive work have blinded many Christians to the centrality of the corporate nature of God's dealings with men. Federalism, or covenant headship, has been the biblical standard from Adam to the new covenant. That is, some men have represented other men before God. There is no place where this is more apparent and central than in the covenant household—the family. It was not only Adam, but Adam's children and his children's children, who suffered the consequences of his sin. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it in question 16: "The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression." Families fell in Adam, and it is families that God will redeem from the Fall.

Redemptively, the household is not marginal or incidental in Scripture. It plays a central role in both the old and new covenants. Old Testament society was ordered by God and was dominated by the household and tribal structure (the tribe was the extended family).¹ In fact, we do not find God making covenants with people without including their households. For example, "I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring" (Isa. 44:3).² We find, after Adam, an ocean of evidence in Scripture of this essential aspect of redemption. For example, Noah, who "found grace in the eyes of the LORD," went into the ark with "all [his] household" (Gen. 6:8; 7:1).³ The Lord "plagued Pharaoh and his house" (Gen. 12:17). "All" who were "born in [Abraham's] house" or who were "bought with his money" were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12-13, 23, 27). The Lord "closed fast all the wombs of the household of Abimelech" because of his sin (Gen. 20:17-18 NASB). As a result of the sin of Simeon and Levi, Jacob said, "I shall be destroyed, I and my household" (Gen. 34:30 NASB). Entire households were spared death where the blood of the Passover lamb was applied to their doorposts (Ex. 12:27). The Levites were numbered according to their household membership (Num. 3:15). Joshua spoke for his entire household when he declared, "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15). God judged the house of Eli because of the sins of his sons (1 Sam. 3:12-14). David brought God's judgment upon his household because of his sinful conduct with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:10).

The household of our father Abraham ("the father of all those who believe," Rom. 4:11) was the pattern for this covenant household. God had promised Abraham "to be God to you and your descendants after you" (Gen. 17:7). God would make him "a great and mighty nation," and "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (18:18). But the condition of familial faithfulness was central. Abraham had to personally keep covenant with God, and his descendants would also have to keep covenant with God. Abraham would have to command his children and household to keep the way of the Lord:⁴ "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him" (18:19).

The Old Testament emphasis on the covenant household continues in the New Testament. An elder "must be one who manages [governs] his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity" (1 Tim. 3:4 NASB). Likewise, deacons must be "good managers [governors] of their children and their own households" (1 Tim. 2:12 NASB). In Philippians 4:22, we are told of the saints who were "of Caesar's household." These saints were probably Caesar's slaves, yet they were considered a part of his household. When Matthew describes Jesus feeding the multitude with the loaves and fishes, he numbers the crowd by households: "now those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children" (Matt. 15:38). This was not a put-down of women and children. It was normal to think in terms of covenantal family units. Of the nine people who are mentioned by name in the New Testament as being baptized, two were unmarried, two are of unknown marital statutes, and five were heads of households. In every single case where a known head of a household believed and was baptized, we are told that the entire household was also baptized. Finally, on the day when the new covenant was inaugurated, as Peter spoke to the "men of Israel" (Acts 2:22) and they asked what they should do, he spoke to them using the familiar formula of the Abrahamic covenant: "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (v. 39).⁵

---

¹ It is important that we read and understand Scripture in its historical context. Familial and tribal concepts were dominant until recently. They are also the biblical point of view. A focus on the individual has been emphasized in American culture and is a key assumption in Baptist theology.
² See also Isa. 59:21; 66:22.
³ Notice that Gen. 7:1 says, "For you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time" (NASB). This righteousness characterizes Noah, not necessarily his family. Nevertheless, Noah's family receives the benefit of God's covenant grace because they are his family.
⁴ Although these were the conditions of the covenant, God's covenant blessings were still given as an act of his free grace. Meeting the covenant conditions was not meritorious; it did not earn God's blessings. Nevertheless, the conditions of covenant faithfulness (in both the Old and the New Testaments) had to be met in order to receive the gracious gift (i.e., undeserved favor) of God.
⁵ God made his covenant promise in Gen. 17 and 18 to Abraham, to his children, and to the nations. Thus, when Peter spoke to the men of Israel, saying that "the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off" (Acts 2:39), this was not a brand-new concept, but rather a familiar formula.

END.

---

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, the great Presbyterian theologian in the tradition of the old Princeton Theological Seminary, was not known for his terse or pithy writing style. However, in his polemics with the Reformed Baptist theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong on the subject of infant baptism, he was uncharacteristically brief, even blunt:

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances.

This debate can be reduced to one principle question: Does the covenant of grace in its New Testament administration embrace the children of believing parents just as it did in its Old Testament administration? Is the new covenant administration more restricted and less encompassing in its reach than had been the case previously? If children of believing parents were no longer embraced by the covenant as they had been, then the Jews would have been even more hostile toward the gospel than they already were because the condition of their children would have been far worse under the new administration than it had been under the old administration. But Scripture repudiates this pungent doctrine everywhere, differentiating children of believers from unbelieving parents and their children. How does one explain 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children are excluded from the new covenant whereby they were included in the old covenant? "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified [made holy] through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified [made holy] through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" Why the commands to children in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 if they are not considered a part of the new covenant? Why does he say that we were circumcised by baptism ("in Him you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism", Col. 2:11-12)?

The "New" Covenant

“Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.” Galatians 3:15-18

This passage contrasts which two covenants? That is correct! The Abrahamic and the Mosaic. Notice that it declares that the Mosaic covenant does not do away with, abolish, make obsolete, or replace the Abrahamic covenant.

“For finding fault with them, He says, ‘BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM UPON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, “KNOW THE LORD,” FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.’ When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” Hebrews 8:8-13

This passage contrasts which two covenants? That is correct! The “New” and the Mosaic. Notice it says nothing of the Abrahamic covenant. Why? Because it is still in effect (read the epistle to the Galatians). You could not contend that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:7) is obsolete because Peter contends for it in Acts 2:39 ("The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself") and Paul contends for it in Galatians 3 ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise") and Ephesians 2 ("You were...strangers to the covenants of promise . . . you are no longer strangers"). Hebrews 8 does not refer to every covenant of the past being made obsolete, as some are in the erroneous practice of stating. If this were the case, then we would cease to have God’s rainbow in the sky, a testament of His covenant with Noah to never again flood the Earth. If this covenant was made obsolete, then God could flood the Earth again any time He wished. For the good student of the Word who examines his context, he will see clearly that Hebrews 8 refers to the Mosaic covenant's ceremonial aspects. Anything that was a type or shadow and found its fulfillment in Christ is obsolete. If one remembers that the Bible was never written with the divisions of chapters and verses, as they read from chapter 8 into chapter 9, it becomes quite clear as to what the context is and what Hebrews 8 is referring to.

Here is the kicker for you. The Greek word translated as “new” (καινος) actually means “fresh” or “renewed.” It does not mean “brand new.” The same is true with regard to the Hebrew word (חרשׁ) used by Jeremiah. What is new about the New Covenant? If we examine Jeremiah's quotation, and think about it carefully, we will realize that the majority of what is said is not new.

1. There is no radical separation between the peoples of the Old and New Testaments (as Dispensationalists teach). Paul refers to the saints as "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). He refers to himself and the disciples in Philippi as members of "the true circumcision" (Phil. 3:3). The church in the new covenant era is frequently described in the same terms used to refer to the people of God during the old covenant administration (1 Peter 2:9-10; Rom. 9:24-26).
2. The new covenant is concerned with internal religion, in contrast to external, but that is not new to it: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart" (Deut. 6:4-6).
3. God takes the initiative in the new covenant, but that is not new. Without divine initiative, no one would be saved. Throughout the Bible, God shows Himself to be the One Who accomplishes everything according to the counsel of His will, and nothing can thwart His purposes (Eph. 1:11; Pss. 115:3; 135: 6; Job 42:2).
4. God establishes a covenant relationship between Himself and His people in the new covenant, but that is not new: "I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people" (Lev. 26:12); "Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say to them, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, "Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant which I commanded your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, 'Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people, and I will be your God'"'" (Jer. 11:2-4); "Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, 'I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.'" (2 Cor. 6:16); "And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them'" (Rev. 21:3).
5. Knowledge of the Lord characterizes the new covenant, but it is not new. What is new is that something is going to cease that pertains to teaching and the knowledge of the Lord. It has to do with a form of teaching that occurred among the covenant people of the Lord. The passage is stated negatively: "They shall not."
6. God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness are prominent in the new covenant, but not new to it: "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness and truth" (Ex. 34:6); "How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit!" (Psalm 32:1-2); "The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in loving-kindness. He will not always strive with us; nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His loving-kindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust" (Psalm 103:8-14).

The thing that is new to the new covenant is that "THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM" (Heb. 8:11) In the Old Testament, it was the Levitical priests who had a unique relationship with the Lord. It was their duty to teach their fellow citizen and brother: "... So the Levites shall be Mine" (Num. 3:12); "And of Levi he said, . . . They shall teach Thine ordinances to Jacob, and Thy law to Israel. They shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt offerings on Thine altar" (Deut. 33:8, 10); "True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts" (Mal. 2:6-7). The rest of Israel was referred to as a "layman," an outsider or stranger, and was to be put to death if they came near (Num. 1:51; 3:10, 28; 16:40). "The least to the greatest" refers to classes or ranks of persons, in both the Hebrew (גרול ,קטו) and Greek (μικρος, μεγας) use (Gen. 19:4; 27:15; Deut. 1:17; 1 Sam. 5:9; 30:32; Est. 1:5, 20; 1 Chron. 25:8; 2 Chron. 15:13; 18:30; 31:15; Jonah 3:5; Acts 8:11; 26:22; Rev. 11:18; 13:6; 19:5, 18; 20:12). Jeremiah uses this phraseology seven times and each time it refers to classes or ranks of persons (Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 16:6; 31:34; 42:1, 8; 44:12). In the New Testament, the single use of the word "least" (μικρος) refers to children (Matt. 18:6, 10, 14; Luke 9:48). There is no command given in Scripture to exclude children from covenant membership. Covenant membership does not equate to election or salvation.

Jeremiah and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews both reveal that the thing that is new to the new covenant is in relation to the teaching of the knowledge of the Lord. Everything else stated is not new. Too many individuals pervert the Jeremiah quotation for their own agendas, failing to expositorily exegete the passage correctly. Let's be like the noble Bereans, brothers and sisters, and study our Bibles carefully and exegetically. Let's stick to the old truths. They are more accurate and reliable.

Baptism's Meaning

The problem with understanding the purpose of baptism arises when Christians understand it to be a sign of faith, or a sign that one has received forgiveness of sins. When this is what we understand by baptism, then our understanding fails miserably. This problem is not averted by waiting until people make professions at an age of maturity, as has been demonstrated in our churches. We have seen far too many people baptized who do not have faith and/or whose lives clearly demonstrate that they are unregenerate. Further, by waiting until an age of maturity, we are being disobedient and are not following the biblical example. If we examine the book of Acts, any time someone made a profession of faith, they were baptized there on the spot. There was no waiting. If they were heads of their household, their entire household was baptized with them. Baptism was not a sign of their having come to faith, for we see several examples of those whose profession was false, such as Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24) and Demas (2 Tim. 4:10). If baptism was a sign of one's faith, and is for believer's only, then it makes no sense at all why Scripture would contain warnings against apostasy (Heb. 10:28-30).

Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the truth of God's promise—to give righteousness to all who have faith—and testifies in one of two ways. One, it testifies to a blessing (that righteousness is given to those of faith); two, it testifies to a curse (that those who break the covenant will be cut off). Baptism and circumcision are different externally, but they are exactly identical internally. They represent the same things: both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30).

Matthew Henry, commenting on Romans 2:28-29, wrote: "He is not a Christian that is one outwardly, nor is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." Baptism, whether by sprinkling, pouring, or dunking, is merely an outward demonstration of one's being dedicated to God for His purposes and uses. Yes, Scripture supports sprinkling, pouring, or dunking as baptism. Study the individual words out (baptizo, βαπτιζω; baptisma, βαπτισμα; baptismos, βαπτισμος; baptistes, βαπτιστης; bapto, βαπτω) and their usages and interpretations. How can you baptize a table (Mark 7:4)? Baptism does not save, does not regenerate, and does not mean the individual truly belongs to, or will belong to, the Lord. Baptism is not a public declaration of one's faith, as we have proven with Simon Magus and Demas, and we have witnessed rampantly throughout the North American churches.

When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of your country with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights and responsibilities and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision and baptism. The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught it. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself, or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself.

The fact that no command was ever given in Scripture revoking the inclusion of children in the covenant is proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. The several examples of household baptisms in the New Testament are also proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. When you study the Greek construction behind these, you will find that one believed (singularly) but the entire household was baptized (plurally), which logically would have included children. It says nothing of their personal faith. If there was a change in the sign of the covenant and children were no longer included in that covenant, the Jews would have been furious because their children were now worse off than they were before. It would be quite understandable as to why. That is why Peter said, "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

Those who come to this subject openly, honestly desiring to seek the truth of Scripture and know what it teaches so that they can conform their lives to it, will convert and embrace this doctrine wholeheartedly. God rewards those who diligently seek Him and reveals His truths to those who earnestly and honestly want to know them. Why do you suppose that so many credobaptists are becoming paedobaptists? What credible reason can you give as to their abandoning of credobaptism other than the fact they studied the Scriptures and Scripture convinced them of paedobaptism? Clearly their pre-supposition was toward credobaptism, and all their arguments against paedobaptism demonstrate the utter disdain they had for it. So what changed?

Let's not forget the historical record of the facts. I repeat from a previous blog entry:

In his book Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, Samuel Miller consults church history. He quotes several church fathers from the third century who speak on the issue of infant baptism. He even refers to a discourse between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius denied that children are born with a sinful nature. So Augustine argued with him that if that is the case, then there is no need to baptize infants. Pelagius agreed to infant baptism and said he knew of no one who denied such a practice. Now, if infant baptism is unbiblical and was not taught by the Apostles, then somewhere in the 200-some years between their deaths and these church fathers of the third century, infant baptism somehow miraculously and mysteriously became the predominant practice without anyone noticing. One minute they were not practicing it and *POOF* the next minute they were, without anybody noticing the slightest change. How stupid do these people think we are?!? The first group of people to question infant baptism were an offshoot of the Waldenses, under a man named Peter de Bruis, referred to as Petrobrussians, 1200 years after Christ. The next group of people to question infant baptism were the Anabaptists 1500 years after Christ. Then later the Baptists under the erroneous interpretations of Dispensationalism and its dividing of Scripture, creating disunity between the Testaments by separating them and creating a "God of the Old Testament" and a "God of the New Testament" when there is only but one God of the whole Bible--in unity! So, for over 1600 years (excluding the Catholic perversion of the practice), until the Baptists came along, the entire Christian church was in unity over the teaching, practice, and defense of infant baptism.

Do yourself a favour, Christian, and be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures. Put off your traditions, put off your pre-suppositions, put off your personal feelings and opinions, and be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures. Seek God's truths with joy and a desire to conform your life to those truths. When those truths confront and challenge your current beliefs, submit yourself to them and conform yourself to them. This is the best advice I can give you.

If you want to understand this subject better in order to make a more informed decision, there are three excellent books I would recommend:

• Why Do We Baptize Infants? by Bryan Chapell
• Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Robert R. Booth
• The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge

Why Do People Disagree With Infant Baptism?

1. They believe that the new covenant is made strictly between God and regenerate people only. But if this were true, why does the new covenant repeatedly warn against apostasy? Hebrews 10:28-30, for example. There is absolutely no sense warning about apostasy if the new covenant is only between God and regenerate people because we know for a fact that, if you are a genuine convert, it is impossible for you to lose your salvation. Apostasy is committed by those who claim to have belonged to or believed in that faith and have since rejected it. The genuine convert can do no such thing. Ergo, such warnings would be senseless, useless, and worthless.
2. They believe that the new covenant is a brand new covenant that replaces the old covenant. In truth, the word for "new" does not mean "brand new" but rather "fresh" or "renewed." Therefore, the new covenant is a renewed covenant that expands the former covenant. Some try and quote Hebrews 8:13 here, but the context of chapter 9 rebukes them. Anything that was a type or shadow and found its fulfillment in Christ is obsolete. Basically, the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Covenant. No one would contend that the Noahic Covenant is now obsolete, because we still have God's sign and seal of that covenant to this very day. Otherwise, He could flood the world again. Likewise, you could not contend that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:7) is obsolete because Peter contends for it in Acts 2:39 ("The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself") and Paul contends for it in Galatians 3 ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise") and Ephesians 2 ("You were...strangers to the covenants of promise . . . you are no longer strangers"). The new covenant is a further expansion and final revelation of the covenant of grace that was first made with Adam.
3. They believe that there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) for infant baptism. Likewise, there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) against infant baptism. On this point, both are arguing from silence. Further, there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) to exclude children from baptism, which would be required if God changed His dealings with His people. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with those who are against it. For over 2000 years the Jews practiced the rite of the sign, seal, and pledge of circumcision with regard to the promise of the covenant of grace. Had this changed, there would be express command, by word or sample, in the Scriptures. The Jews would have objected to such a thing because their children would have been in a worse condition under the gospel than they had been under the law, which would have strengthened their prejudices against it. For everyone in their household to be included except for their children would have outraged them. Really, there is explicit warrant for the inclusion of children in the new covenant (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:36-37), in the church (Eph. 1:1 with 6:1-4; Col. 1:2 with 3:20; 1 Cor. 7:14), and in the kingdom (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).
4. They believe there are no examples of infant baptism in the Scriptures. Likewise, there are no examples of believer's children later believing and being baptized. You would think that considering the book of Acts spans like 40 years you would have such examples, but you do not. They are no better off for explicit verses to teach their practice. However, the examples of household baptisms do support the inclusion of children. It would be incredulous to believe that none of the members of these households had any children whatsoever (considering households consisted of spouse, children, slaves, and any relatives living with you). It would be even more incredulous (but not necessarily impossible) to state that every single one of them expressed faith. What we see is the heads of these households believing and their entire households being baptized. The household baptisms also demonstrate that God still deals with people according to households and headship representation. Adam was our head and represented us all when he sinned. Abraham was head and represented his entire household (children, slaves, relatives). Korah's entire household perished because of his rebellion. The man who stole silver brought his entire household under judgment and they were all stoned. The two sons that brought strange fire to the altar caused their father's house to be judged. David's house was judged because of his sin with Bathsheba. Individualism and its selfishness did not exist until the Renaissance. The entire globe, and many cultures still today, operated under the familial unit. We cannot take our mindset and way of life and impose it on the Scriptures!
5. They believe that such a practice intimates that the child is a born-again believer. If that were the case, then the practice of circumcision to the 8-day-old infant meant that he had expressed faith like Abraham (Rom. 4; Gal. 3) and was himself a believer. Any argument against infant baptism is necessarily an argument against infant circumcision. The sign and seal of circumcision and baptism does nothing for the individual's salvation. It merely sets them apart for God's use. The condition to be met of the covenant in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament is, has been, and always will be faith. When that condition is met, then the blessings that accompany the covenant belong to that individual. When that condition is not met, then the curses that accompany the covenant belong to that individual. Only the heresy of the Roman Catholic Church attests that baptism saves and regenerates. This is why the warnings of apostasy under the new covenant exist. Because that child may be set apart for God by his parents, but reject God entirely. Everything that belongs to the believer is set apart for God's use, and God wants to redeem everything connected to the believer. The creation never sinned, yet it waits to be redeemed. Why? From what? It gets redeemed in connection to man's redemption. God has always wanted to redeem man, man's household, and man's society. Case in point, Noah is said to have been the only righteous man on the earth, and yet God redeemed his family with him.
6. They believe that baptism and circumcision are completely different from each other in every way. The truth is, only the external practice of each is different. The internal representation of each is exactly the same. Both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30). Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. This fact is seen in Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul refers to "circumcision of Christ" as "baptism": "In [Jesus] you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism..."
7. They believe that infant baptism is not biblical and was not taught by the Apostles. In his book Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, Samuel Miller consults church history. He quotes several church fathers from the third century who speak on the issue of infant baptism. He even refers to a discourse between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius denied that children are born with a sinful nature. So Augustine argued with him that if that is the case, then there is no need to baptize infants. Pelagius agreed to infant baptism and said he knew of no one who denied such a practice. Now, if infant baptism is unbiblical and was not taught by the Apostles, then somewhere in the 200-some years between their deaths and these church fathers of the third century, infant baptism somehow miraculously and mysteriously became the predominant practice without anyone noticing. One minute they were not practicing it and *POOF* the next minute they were, without anybody noticing the slightest change. How stupid do these people think we are?!? The first group of people to question infant baptism were an offshoot of the Waldenses, under a man named Peter de Bruis, referred to as Petrobrussians, 1200 years after Christ. The next group of people to question infant baptism were the Anabaptists 1500 years after Christ. Then later the Baptists under the erroneous interpretations of Dispensationalism and its dividing of Scripture, creating disunity between the Testaments by separating them and creating a "God of the Old Testament" and a "God of the New Testament" when there is only but one God of the whole Bible—in unity! So, for over 1600 years (excluding the Catholic perversion of the practice), until the Baptists came along, the entire Christian church was in unity over the teaching, practice, and defense of infant baptism.

I was raised with the Baptist view of baptism. After looking thoroughly at Scripture and church history, I have become convinced that infant baptism is right, proper, and biblical. Some people have it done out of tradition, some have it done out of the beauty of the ceremony, and some have it done out of erroneous misconceptions and superstitions that it will somehow magically protect their child from hell. None of these reasons is sufficient for believers to baptize their children. We do so because God commands it and wants to be a God to us and to our children.

Those who disagree with and deny infant baptism do so apart from the Scriptures. They do so based on their pre-suppositions, their traditions, and their personal feelings. All of Scripture and church history stands against them. They disagree with and deny it out of rebellion and disobedience. By doing so, they count their own precious children to be among the pagans, where even Scripture made a difference between the children of believers and pagan adults. Children were always considered under the umbrella of their parents' faith in the Bible, until they either embraced it themselves or rejected it, at which point they would receive either the blessings or the curses of the covenant. If God denies the sign and seal to infants of believers, it is because He denies them the grace signified by it. That means that all children of believers who die in their infancy must be hopelessly lost because God does not want them baptized. Ergo, He does not want them to have salvation. But that is not what the Bible teaches us. The Bible teaches us that children are proper subjects of Christ's kingdom (Matt. 18:6; 19:13-15; 21:16; Luke 10:21; 18:15-17). 1 Corinthians 7:14 only makes sense when considered under the covenantal view. I pray that believers would study this debated subject with joy in their hearts, seeking to know the truth so that they may happily conform their lives to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Riddle me this... Despite all the facts we have just examined, if infant baptism is wrong and unbiblical, why are so many Baptists who are studying the subject honestly with open hearts converting and teaching, practicing, and defending it? Many who have adamantly written arguments against it have since refuted all their previous works and shown where their works were in error. Why is that? Let me say this... God rewards those who diligently seek Him and reveals His truths to those who earnestly and honestly want to know them. God bless!