Questions vs. Statements

"I Can't Afford It" vs "How Can I Afford It?"

Questions open the mind; statements close the mind. When you say, "I can't afford it," while it might be true, your mind shuts down. You become what you say. When you ask, "How can I afford it," though you might not be able to, your mind opens up. You begin considering possibilities in order to achieve the goal.

If you really want people to learn, such as the brainwashed hive-mind Leftists, ask them questions. Do not merely give them point blank factual statements. You tell it like it is, making statements, and their minds shut down. If you ask them questions, forcing them to locate the answers, it opens their minds up. They have no choice but to use their minds.

Asking questions is difficult. Trust me, I know. When someone is blatantly wrong, you just want to correct them with truthful statements. You do not want to play games like 20 questions. But that is the only real way to teach them. When I taught myself basic CGI, I remember looking at the code and asking myself, "What if I wrote it this way? Would that achieve my goal?" For the longest time, the script kept breaking every time I tried something and I would have to try again. After about a week of trying various thoughts, finally one I jotted down while working at a pig farm accomplished exactly what I had been striving for.

A Christian who studies the Bible should be doing the same thing. I have been praised because of how quickly I can cut through various doctrinal positions in order to arrive at the truth, and how I can do so with such ease. Apart from being a gift from God, the other reason why I can do so is because I ask questions. I think about it. It forces me to weigh all views and filter them through the Bible (instead of the other way around). For example, if you use 2 Peter 3:9 to teach that God is not willing that any people on Earth should perish into an eternity in Hell, I ask how that squares with passages that state that whatever God purposes, whatever He wills, He accomplishes. Nothing and no one can thwart Him. So if He is not willing that any should perish, and He always accomplishes His will, that would mean that Universalism must be true and every single person will end up in Heaven for eternity. Problem is, the Bible states otherwise. So that shows me that 2 Peter 3:9 does not mean what many people falsely interpret it to mean. The context reveals something entirely different. By asking such questions, I am forced to discover the truth (against whatever feelings or opinions I might have), and, unless I am disobedient and rebellious at heart, reform my beliefs in order to conform with what the Scriptures actually teach.

I am still trying to learn how to ask questions of others so that they are forced to learn and discover the truth for themselves. It is a difficult process.

"You need to find a real teacher as opposed to a fake teacher. A fake teacher is someone who doesn't do what they teach. A real teacher is someone doing what they teach every day." —Robert Kiyosaki

In other words, a real teacher lives out what they teach, while a fake teacher is a hypocrite. Not only does this statement apply to any subject or field of study, but it also applies to the Christian life as well.

The Importance of Church Membership

A Response to Todd Friel and Paul Washer

Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcw4830tKQA

Mr. Washer says some really great things in this video, and very true, but the foundation of where he is coming from is flawed and incorrect. He is approaching the subject from the belief, and false assumption, that the local institutional "church" is what is in view. His position comes from denominational tradition—not from the Scriptures themselves. What is your authority? Is it church history? Is it church tradition? Is it your creed? Is it your confession? Is it your constitution? Is it your statement of faith? Is it your system of theology? Is it what the “experts” tell you? Is it your "experiences"? Is it your subjective feelings or opinions? Or is it Scripture alone? Scripture—not pragmatic considerations—should be our absolute and final authority.

Imagine I were a counselor of some kind, like a marriage counselor. Imagine that throughout my career I had written many letters to both groups of people and single individuals. But after I had died, only 9 letters written to groups could be found, and 4 letters written to individuals. Some time later, someone has the idea to add chapters and verses to my letters. If you were to take one sentence from one letter and try to tie it together with another sentence from another letter, unless the context surrounding the one agrees with the context surrounding the other, you have just created a false teaching from my letters. The two sentences are in no way, shape, or form related or complementary.

This is precisely what Christians have done with the Bible ever since the addition of chapters and verses 700 and 500 years ago. They continuously proof-text the Bible in order to support all sorts of ridiculous and unbiblical teachings. They treat each individual verse as if it, by itself, is the Word of God wholly, which is simply untrue.

The best way for you to avoid proof-texting the Bible yourself is if you obtain a Reader's Bible without chapters and verses, or any other additives. Chapters and verses are a distraction to the natural structure the biblical authors intentionally included in their works, and they subconsciously inform readers of false starting and stopping points. Ever since chapters and verses were added into the Bible, Christians have proof-texted Scripture for their own particular doctrines, ripping random, isolated verses out of their immediate contexts and forcing them together with other random, isolated verses by use of Collapsing Context in order to form teachings that the Bible does not support (e.g., Tithing).

When we understand the epistles in their chronological placement in relation to the book of Acts, and the social-historical context surrounding their writing, figuring in the other side of the conversation that is unavailable to us (we are only hearing one side of a phone conversation), our interpretations will change—as they must. When people begin to understand the full picture, the distorted pictures they have held onto for years, handed to them by their particular denominations, can no longer be sustained. When reading the epistles (or any book), we need to be asking who, what, where, when, and why questions about the writing. This must be our goal if we want to understand and interpret Scripture correctly. When it comes to studying God's Word, I live by three rules:

1. Context, context, context! You need to consider the immediate (surrounding verses), sectional (surrounding chapters), and/or canonical (other passages) contexts, as well as the language, cultural, geographical, and historical gaps (or contexts).
2. Compare Scripture with Scripture! Even when expositing Scripture verse-by-verse, you need to consult the whole counsel of God’s Word, otherwise isolating a passage to the book it is contained in can lead to some very bad interpretations.
3. Wrestle with and submit to what the text actually says, and conform your beliefs accordingly. When you study Scripture openly and honestly, you are inevitably going to challenge some of your presently held beliefs. You need to be obedient to the Lord and to his Word, reforming your beliefs and conforming them to Scripture accordingly, regardless of your emotions. Anything less is disobedience, which is rebellion.
   

 

Here is the transcript to the video in the link above (My answers will follow in blue.):

Todd Friel: Would you agree, Paul, that American evangelicalism has a lower view of the church than, say, the Protestant reformers?

Paul Washer: Absolutely, and more importantly it has a lower view of the church than what we see in Scripture. This is simply no way I can exaggerate the importance of the local church in the life of a believer. If you are not involved in a local church, under its authority, under its care, under its teaching, then you are at present not in the center of God's will.

American "evangelicalism" (and the Protestant Reformers) also has an incorrect view of the Church. Why are there so many different denominations, and why does each one think that they are the only true "church" and that their beliefs and practices are completely biblical? In fact, if your "church" believes that everything they do is "by the Book," I accuse your "church" of being a liar! In less than 30 seconds, I can prove that your "church" does not do everything "by the Book." Not only does much of the rituals and practices of your denomination's liturgy, or service, retain their foundation from the Catholic system (sometimes with moderate tweaks or changes), but their roots can be traced back to both the pagan religions and the Greco-Roman culture. All the corruptions your "church" embraces and practices every week were set in stone by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century (who, by the way, did not become a Christian; he was a superstitious pagan until his dying breath). If you want to attempt to debate these facts, I suggest you pick up a copy of Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. It has well-documented footnotes.
The early Church turned the world upside down, but from the 4th through 7th centuries, the Church was turned upside down. She absorbed many elements from paganism. Current "church" practices originate from three main periods of time: the Constantine and post-Constantine era; the Reformation era; and the Revivalist era. The majority of elements every denomination practices largely originate from the Constantine and post-Constantine era, and have their roots in pagan religions and the Greco-Roman culture.
Again, what is your authority? Is it what the early church Fathers and Reformers said? Or is it what Scripture says, which we see practiced in the early Church before it began to get corrupted by the early Fathers, whose corruption eventually led to Catholicism? By the way, the Reformers failed to reform biblical Church life and practice. Because they came out of the Catholic system, they still believed that much of the practices were "biblical," while tweaking the odd element here and there. If you study history, Calvin was not much better than the Pope. He basically set himself up as Pope in Geneva. It was his way or the highway there. Let us not romanticize any period of history, but see it with open eyes, and to see our heroes of the faith with open eyes, too, so that we do not attempt to gloss over or deny their obvious and abundant sins. (Checking Our Heroes of the Faith)
Here, Mr. Washer is speaking of the institutionalized "church," which is not at all what the apostles spoke of in their epistles. "Church" is a terrible translation for the Greek ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), which literally refers to "a gathering," "an assembly," or "a congregation" of those "called out" from the world and to God. Every single one of the 114 occurrences of ekklesia in the New Testament refers to an assembly of people—not a place (e.g., the church [assembly of believers] in So-and-so's house; the churches [assemblies of believers] of Galatia). The word "church" is derived from the Greek kuriakon, which means "belonging to the Lord." So, yes, technically you can be a church all by yourself, because you belong to the Lord. You cannot, however, be a "congregation" all by yourself. But I digress. Eventually the word came to mean "the Lord's house" or "God's house," referring to a building. Clement was the first person to use the phrase "go to church," which would have been foreign to first-century Christians, and he also used it incorrectly to refer to the meeting place (A.D. 190). You cannot go to something that you are!
The word ekklesia designated the assembly of a Greek city-state, in which only citizens could participate. The Church is not "a hospital for sinners." The Church is for believers only! Go ahead. Read through the entire New Testament (especially the book of Acts) and find a single instance of sinners in the Church. Oh, and in case you were not aware of it, once a person has been born again, even though they might stumble into sin from time to time, the Bible refers to them as saints—never as sinners. They are a new creation! You would never call a butterfly a "caterpillar saved by grace," so why do you use the ridiculous phrase, "sinner saved by grace"? Again, I digress. So how do you get the lost into the Church? You go out into the world, you make disciples, and then you bring them into the Church. Not the other way around!
Lastly, there is more to being in the center of God's will than simply being involved in a local "church." This argument is a highly over-simplification of being in the center of God's will. You can be involved in a local "church" and still not be in the center of God's will. According to Jesus, being in the center of God's will involved being obedient to the Word (both Christ and the Scriptures)—not the commandments of men. Most denominations "teach as doctrines the commandments of men," "neglect the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men," and "reject the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition."

Todd Friel: Many people hear that and they think that that was an extreme statement because they've never had the joy of experiencing what you're describing. So talk to the person who has maybe never been immersed in a church at this level so that they can see, Wow! there's some sweet fruit that I am missing.

Paul Washer: The reason why you should do it, first of all, is not for the benefit that you would immediately receive; the reason why you should be a part of a local church is because, first of all, it's commanded in Scripture. So whether we think we're receiving some sort of benefit that we witness or not is not the point. First of all, it is the command of Scripture. Also, when we look at the New Testament, particularly the letters of Paul, we don't see any reality of his work outside of the local body of believers. Now, another thing, though, is when we learn, for example, before I was married, I was really spiritual, and then I got married and I discovered that I was a very immature, selfish little boy. When we live in the community of the church, and they actually get involved in people's lives, we begin to see what true sanctification is; we learn how to grow, how to respond, and how to live as one with other people in Christ. You see, one of the things about living with people who don't meet all the conditions as you learn unconditional love, you learn mercy, you learn grace. You know, I've been a Christian for 33 years. I couldn't even conceive of myself outside of the fellowship of the church I belong to and the care of the ministers in my life who when I go to them they are wise in the scriptures. They help me, they guide me, they rebuke me. Everyone needs the same thing I need. That type of care, and it's only found in a local church.

Yes, being part of a local church is commanded in Scripture, but not in the way that Mr. Friel, Mr. Washer, and others think. Their thinking is based on their experience, knowledge, and understanding. When believers assembled together in the New Testament, how did they do so? First of all, the early Christians did not meet in a temple of any kind. They met in houses (Acts 2:2, 46; 5:42; 16:40; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 1:2 [and if you would like to eisegete it, you can include Matt. 18:20 here]); the same prescription we see in countries today where there is hostility against Christianity. Christians did not have temples to meet in until the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. He gave Christians temples to worship in in order to legitimize the religion. He gave to them what every other religion had: a sacred temple, a sacred priestly caste, and sacred objects (he took relics from pagan temples and adorned his "Christian" temples with them). Christianity is not based on, or to be based on, the Judaistic system or any of the pagan systems. In case you missed it reading through the New Testament, Jesus did away with such systems. Jesus set His Church apart from such systems, and made it different from them in both structure and practice. The "Moses model" is not only unbiblical, but it is also extremely dangerous! Second of all, the early Christians did not have an authoritarian hierarchical structure within the local body, with "clergy" being superior to "laity"; that developed later through the idea and false teaching of apostolic succession. They functioned with complete equality. No one led from the front, and everyone was accountable to everyone else. That is what all the "one another" statements in Scripture make clear. Elders were just as accountable to everyone else as everyone else was accountable to elders. The authoritarian view of needing "permission" from your elder(s) in order to do something developed under the early Fathers; it does not exist anywhere in the New Testament! Such behaviour is actually akin to being in a cult!
Yes, when we live in the community of the Church, we do learn how to grow, how to respond, and how to live as one with other people in Christ. We do learn unconditional love, mercy, and grace. But what is the community of the Church? The fellowship and community of the Church is any gathering of God's people—the saints—together in order to worship God, share with each other, encourage one another, rebuke each other, and hold one another accountable. The early Christians did this daily, but they also had their Sunday gatherings; all of which took place in houses. There was no poor stewardship in maintaining large, expensive, unwarranted buildings!
The community of the Church is not limited to institutional "churches," nor does it have anything to do with institutional "churches." Institutional "churches" are not biblical in the least. For a number of reasons. First, their liturgy, or service, is entirely unbiblical, every single element thereof being traceable back to the pagan religions and the Greco-Roman culture. For example, the way many denominations dress their clergy is based on how the Roman senate used to dress. Their building layout and the elements in their liturgy, or service, are patterned after pagan temples and rituals. Second, Christians should not be giving money in order to sustain the institution they meet in. Christians were not required to tithe (which was Israel's taxation system), and when they voluntarily gave, it was, first of all, not about money, and, second of all, it was given to the poor and needy. It was not given to the "local church," nor was it given to the "pastor" (a title and position that the Scriptures are unequivocally against) or a staff of people. Where do you see "weekly giving" in the New Testament? First Corinthians 16:2? Please! Give me a break. How about you try reading that verse in context?!? Paul was collecting a relief fund to aid the Jerusalem church who was suffering through famine. And it likely had nothing to do with money (Old Testament tithing sure did not—it was about food). Proof-text and eisegete the Bible much, preachers? Institutional "churches" are nothing but businesses and it is always about their bottom line! Find that model anywhere in the Bible! I dare you.
You see, when you change something beyond what it was originally designed to be, such as marriage between one man and one woman for life, you make it completely other than what God had intended (two men together or two women together is not a "marriage"). This results in it being dysfunctional. "Churches" that are not based on the teaching, traditions, and practices of the Lord Jesus and His apostles are unbiblical, dysfunctional "churches." The New Testament knows nothing of "church services" as you and I have experienced!

Todd Friel: Let me share the excuses that people will give to your, "You should really be immersed, not just regularly attending, but joining a local church." There are no good churches to join.

Paul Washer: Well, first of all, there are no perfect churches, that's for sure. The church I belong to, it's not perfect. But it is healthy, and it is beneficial. Now, with what they're saying, in one part there's some truth to it. There is a dearth of biblical churches in America. That is true. But if I'm very, very sick and I have to find a cure, if I'm very cold, if I'm freezing outside and I have to find shelter, I'm going to do everything possible to find shelter, to find that cure, and a person needs to realize, first of all, even though there may be a dearth of what you would call biblical churches in your area, you must do everything possible to be a part of the church that is most biblical in your area. And even if you feel the need to move, I mean, I would move if I had to in order to find a biblical church. But we also need to be very, very careful. There are doctrines that define a biblical church. But then there are also doctrines regarding character. And I have met some ministers, that when I looked at, maybe, their ways of doing some things, I would say they need to clean up their act with regard to Scripture, they need to limit themselves to what is written in things, but when I look at the men and I see their character, I realized, yes, I could be a part of that simply because these men are men of character and they genuinely love Jesus. So we're not going to find something that is tailor-made to each one of us. I love the idea I teach in marriage when you have a bicycle wheel and you have the axis in the middle, that those spokes they never touch each other. But the closer they come to the axis the closer they come to one another. And our goal is that for churches, for people, for individuals, our spouse is everything. Not for everyone to be conformed to us, but for us to all conformed to Christ as he's revealed in the scriptures, and as that happens, then we're going to find a lot more unity.

Mr. Washer's advice here is very dangerous. Yes, we should be assembling together with other believers and sharing in fellowship. However, this does not necessitate attending an institutionalized "church." You do not necessarily need to "move" in order to "find" biblical church. Perhaps God wants you to open the doors of your home and have biblical church for others to come and join.
Mr. Washer is correct in stating that there are doctrines that define a biblical Church. Let us look at what those are:

• New Testament churches met once a week on the first day of the week (Sunday; which for Jews began immediately after sundown on Saturday evening at 6:00pm) to partake of the Lord's Supper.
• New Testament churches assembled in houses. Temple courts, such as Solomon's Porch, as public gathering spaces, were used for mass gatherings for teaching, evangelism, prayer, etc. They were used for multi-church gatherings.
• New Testament churches were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory in their corporate worship and sharing for the spiritual well-being of everyone present. No one was to control the proceedings, leading from the front. The format for how they were to function is outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31. The key to a healthy body is that each part function properly according to its design.
• New Testament churches ate the Lord's Supper as a full meal as part of their proceedings, which was commonly referred to as a "love feast." It was not a tiny little cup and piece of bread, as we see in practically ever denomination.
  
• New Testament churches were extended family units; living organisms—not institutions/organizations/corporations, and they practiced non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous male leadership (not controlling, subjugating, dominating) that had arisen from within the church they would subsequently shepherd. Eldership was understood to be purely functional and not positional (as a title or an office). Decision making was consensual and collective, made by the whole company of believers and not simply the “officials.”

These are the non-negotiable, irreducible, bare minimum requirements that determine whether a church is biblical or not. If you really had to, if there were extenuating circumstances, you could still maintain the nature and function of a church while meeting somewhere other than in people's homes. Nevertheless, however, you would still need to meet all the other requirements of a biblical church. This means that you should sit in a circle so everyone can see and hear each other, and that worship should remain entirely open, spontaneous, and participatory. No one should be leading the proceedings (least of all from the front, elevated above everyone else as if they are somehow more important than everyone else). The meeting is to be a dialogue, as prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14:26, and not a monologue. If anyone understands the last three parts of the pattern, why would they want to play around with the first two parts (meeting on Sundays, and meeting in houses)—unless there were extenuating circumstances?
You think your "church" is "biblical"? You think it does everything "by the Book"? What are your teachings/practices with regard to baptism? the Lord's Supper? membership? tithing? I will guarantee that your "church" does not meet the biblical standards of a single one of these. Your teachings/practices are derived from the words of the early Fathers and the Reformers, man-made traditions handed down to you; not from the Scriptures themselves!

Todd Friel: Excuse number two; The church is not a building, it's people.

Paul Washer: It's not a coffee shop either. It is a group of people, but when you look in the New Testament, it's a group of people with a specific order. There are elders who are qualified to be elders according to 1st Timothy 3 and Titus 1; they bear those characteristics. There is the exposition of the Word going on, there is devotion to prayer, there's things like church discipline, there's ministry in the body. So, those are the things that define a church. Meeting just with a group of believers all of the same age, it's not a church.

Mr. Washer is predominantly in error here, making assumptions based on his experience of "church" and the proof-texting of Scripture handed down to him through his denomination. First, what makes him think that a group of believers assembling together who are approximate in age is somehow not a church? I have attended institutional "churches" where well over 90% of its attendees were seniors of relative age. Very few young people. Was that not a "church," according to Mr. Washer's denunciation? I have also attended institutional "churches" where the majority of attendees were in their 30s and 40s with extremely few seniors. Was that not a "church," according to Mr. Washer's denunciation? I will give Mr. Washer the benefit of the doubt that his answer was focused on and envisioned a particular type of people rather than considering the whole picture. Second, the New Testament Church nowhere has a specific order. First Corinthians 14:26, 29-31 makes it clear that "when you assemble," their corporate worship was open, spontaneous, and participatory. This is how Paul taught "all the churches" (1 Cor. 7:17; 14:33). The authoritarian hierarchical structure came later through the early church Fathers, whose only means of combating the false teachings of the Gnostics who claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit, was to invent the equally false teaching of apostolic succession (rather than placing their authority upon the Scriptures).
There is no function of "elder" in the New Testament. If there were, why does Paul not mention such a function in Philippians 1:1, where he makes reference to those saints who were functioning in the roles of watchman (episkopos) and servant (diakonos)? Why does Paul not list the characteristics for such in 1 Timothy 3 along with the characteristics he lists for watchmen and servants? The use of the word presbuteros in 1 Tim. 5:1, 2, 19; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1 is an adjective! An adjective is a word or phrase that names an attribute. It is added to a noun in order to modify it, such as "red car" or "blue hat." The use of "elder" (presbuteros) in Scripture does not prescribe a function (and least of all a title or a position); it describes a person. This term is frequently used along side that of watchman (Titus 1:5-9), but never alongside that of servant. Watchmen are elders, but not in the authoritarian hierarchical view of things. They were entirely co-equal with their peers, yet had the responsibility of tending to the safety and welfare of the "flock" voluntarily in reference to its spiritual life (Heb. 13:17). Take careful note of what 1 Peter 5:1-3 says. It is unequivocal and irrefutable.
Jesus said, "...I will build My Church..." (Matt. 16:18). He quite obviously had very specific ideas as to how His Church ought to look and function in actual practice. Jesus made it clear that we are not to call ourselves "Pastor" or "Reverend" (only God deserves our reverence), or to call other men by such titles (Matt. 23:8-10). We are to be equal to one another (Matt. 20:25-28), serving one another. Paul's discussion of 'the body' in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 (and Romans 12:3-8) ought to have made this abundantly clear. "Churches" today consist of one mouth and many ears. That is a theatre, where you go to passively watch in silence the performance of a single individual giving a monologue. Did Paul not make it clear? "If they were all one member (ear), where would the body be?" The Body does not exist in your institutional "churches." Are you allowed to interrupt the service if the Lord directs you? Go ahead, see what happens. First Corinthians 12-14 makes it clear that every member has the right and privilege to minister in a church meeting so that the entire Body may be edified by everyone! First Peter 2 makes it clear that every member is a functioning priest! (The Anabaptists, in spite of their many erroneous teachings, recovered this aspect of Church life and practice, and were murdered by Catholics and Reformers alike.) The audience in an institutional "church" is limited to the gifts, knowledge, and experience of a single individual. This structure teaches Christians to value lesser things, and effectively strangles the headship of Christ and stifles the functioning of the Body. That is not a body; that is not a church!

Todd Friel: I don't need a church.

Paul Washer: One answer is, God disagrees with you entirely. It's revealed clearly in the Word. It's like arguing with the wall. I mean, you do need a church.

Yes, you do need the Church. What you do not need is the institutional "church" with its many slightly altered resemblances to the Catholic system. You need a biblical body of believers who meet according to the non-negotiable, irreducible, bare minimum requirements:

• New Testament churches met once a week on the first day of the week (Sunday; which for Jews began immediately after sundown on Saturday evening at 6:00pm) to partake of the Lord's Supper.
• New Testament churches assembled in houses. Temple courts, such as Solomon's Porch, as public gathering spaces, were used for mass gatherings for teaching, evangelism, prayer, etc. They were used for multi-church gatherings.
• New Testament churches were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory in their corporate worship and sharing for the spiritual well-being of everyone present. No one was to control the proceedings, leading from the front. The format for how they were to function is outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31. The key to a healthy body is that each part function properly according to its design.
• New Testament churches ate the Lord's Supper as a full meal as part of their proceedings, which was commonly referred to as a "love feast." It was not a tiny little cup and piece of bread, as we see in practically ever denomination.
• New Testament churches were extended family units; living organisms—not institutions/organizations/corporations, and they practiced non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous male leadership (not controlling, subjugating, dominating) that had arisen from within the church they would subsequently shepherd. Eldership was understood to be purely functional and not positional (as a title or an office). Decision making was consensual and collective, made by the whole company of believers and not simply the “officials.”

Todd Friel: What is the danger if I don't join the church?

Paul Washer: If we had the time, I could go back through my life for 30 years. Now, as a believer, I feel like I feared the Lord, and I have had an appreciation for Scripture, and I've studied the Scripture. But I could go back and show you that there were points and times in my life where, if I had not been influenced by a godly minister, I won't say that I would have departed from an orthodox Christianity, but I would have gotten confused in certain doctrines and certain extremes. And we need each other. We need people speaking into our lives. No man is an island. We were created to feed ourselves, to feed others, to be fed by others, to rebuke ourselves, to rebuke others, to be rebuked by others. We need the community, that's all there is to it. You know, we can sit there and argue all day long, but it's the clear teaching of Scripture. There's no doubt about it. You cannot be in the will of God apart from participation in a local church.

There is no danger if you do not join a local institutionalized "church." There is a danger if you do not assemble regularly with fellow believers in the faith (Heb. 10:23-25), but it does not have to be in a local institutionalized "church." Are you aware that in the early Church, the only qualification for membership was a life changed by the Holy Spirit? Now look at all the unbiblical nonsense attached to "church" membership (which is nothing more than a country club): membership applications, membership classes, waiting periods, voting, approval boards, or any other such practices. None of those things are required for you to become a member of the Church! None of them! If a local institutionalized "church" wants to impose such restraints upon you, then do not become a member; but continue assembling with fellow believers as the Lord calls us to and continue fulfilling the "one another" responsibilities we have toward each other. You do not need to be a member of an institutionalized "church" in order to fulfill those responsibilities. You do not need to be a member of an institutionalized "church" in order to teach, bless, encourage, rebuke, and hold each other accountable. In fact, if you are attending a house church, you can, and should, exercise those responsibilities even to brothers and sisters from institutionalized "churches." Their use is not limited to those of our own circle. If you call yourself a Christian and we encounter each other somewhere, we are accountable to one another precisely as Scripture prescribes.
Yes, we do need each other. Yes, we do need people speaking into our lives, and we need to speak into the lives of others. Yes, we were created to feed ourselves, to feed others, and to be fed by others. Yes, we were created to rebuke ourselves, to rebuke others, and to be rebuked by others. Yes, we do need community. All of that is entirely biblically sound. It is the interpretation of how this ought to look that is the problem. Institutional "churches" want you to become members so that they can exert their unbiblical authority, their dominance, over you, demanding you abide by their law, regardless of what convictions the Holy Spirit may bring upon you through God's holy Word. Look at how many of them tie a commitment of "tithing" (Israel's taxation system) in with their membership in order to line the preacher's pocket and support the existence of a large, expensive, unwarranted building. None of which, by the way, is biblical! These "churches" want you to come under their elders, but are their elders willing to come under you? Scripture demands that they must:

• "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." Eph. 5:21
• "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed." James 5:16
• "Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing." 1 Thess. 5:11
• "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." Col. 3:16
• "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20
• "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more
• "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" Gal. 6:1-2
with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt. 18:15-17

Furthermore, orthodox Christianity today uses the term "minister" incorrectly. They use it to refer to a watchman (episkopos). According to Scripture, a diakonos is a minister, a servant. By the way, our lives should not just be influenced by the watchmen, but by all believers. We have this responsibility toward "one another." Mr. Washer fails to realize that even with the institutionalized "church," he has quite obviously gotten confused regarding certain doctrines and extremes. He is just unaware of it.

Todd Friel: Do you hear a pretty consistent lament amongst American people that they don't feel a part of a community, they don't feel like they have intimate relationships with other people, and then you say, "Are you a member of a church?" "No."

Paul Washer: Right. Well, here's the thing though; a part of that is the church's fault, and people think being a part of the church means that you find a church where the Scriptures are expounded, where the worship is honoring to God, and then every Sunday, and maybe Wednesday, you fill your spot there. They go in, it's like watching a football game, and then they come out. Church is community. It's also serving, it's also, you know, we teach our people that when you come to church on Sunday, of course we have a meal after church and everything, but the purpose of that meal is to get into each other's lives and to bless one another, care for one another. And then, you know, you're filling up your agenda in this sense of, well, there's a brother over here that is sick and all the people get together and they're going to go over and help him or someone needs this, and it's a community of people who are serving one another in the spiritual and also in the material.

Yes, the Church is community. Yes, the Church is serving one another (Eph. 5:21). Yes, we should be blessing one another and caring for one another. We should be fulfilling all the "one another" statements found in Scripture:

• Love (John 13:34; 15:13, 17; Rom. 13:8; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; 3:8; 4:8; 1 John 3:11, 14, 23; 4:7, 11; 2 John 5)
• Encourage (2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11; Heb. 3:13; 10:25)
• Greet (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Pet. 5:14)
• Be Humble (Eph. 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:8; 5:5)
• Have Compassion (Eph. 4:32; 1 Pet. 3:8)
• Live in Peace (Mark 9:50; 1 Thess. 5:13)
• Bear in Love (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:13)
• Forgive (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13)
• Have the Mind of Christ (Rom. 15:5; Phil. 2:5)
• Confess To (James 5:16)
• Serve (Gal. 5:13)
• Admonish (Col. 3:16)
• Be Sympathetic (1 Pet. 3:8)
• Live in Harmony (Rom. 12:16)
• Submit (Eph. 5:21)
• Offer Hospitality (1 Pet. 4:9)
• Agree (1 Cor. 1:10)
• Be Devoted (Rom. 12:10)
• Do Good (1 Thess. 5:15)
• Spur to Love (Heb. 10:24)
• Don't Grumble (James 5:9)
• Speak Songs To (Eph. 5:19)
• Don't Judge (Rom. 14:13)
• Instruct (Rom. 15:14)
• Be Like-minded (1 Pet. 3:8)
• Don't Provoke (Gal. 5:26)
• Honour (Rom. 12:10)
• Be Kind (Eph. 4:32)
• Don't Deprive (1 Cor. 7:5)
• Spur to Good Deeds (Heb. 10:24)
• Don't Slander (James 4:11)
• Pray For (James 5:16)
• Be Gentle (Eph. 4:2)
• Have Equal Concern (1 Cor. 12:25)
• Accept (Rom. 15:7)
• Build Up (1 Thess. 5:11)
• Don't Lie (Col. 3:9)
• Be Patient (Eph. 4:2)
• Don't Pay Back Wrong (1 Thess. 5:15)

The Church is all of that, but that is not limited to being part of an institutionalized "church." It is a fallacy to believe otherwise.

Todd Friel: Another excuse that people will offer; I don't want to join a church. I did that once and I got hurt.

Paul Washer: Yeah, well, first of all, I've been hurt many times. There are things, sometimes, in what we call the manifestation of visible Christianity, that will make us just literally want to throw the whole thing down and walk out the door. The one thing that keeps us from walking out the door is not a thing, it's a person; it's the Crucified Saviour standing in that door. The church will always fail, but you cannot abandon the church because Christ has sent you to the church. Christ has never failed, and so you never have an excuse not to go on with Him, not to serve Him. It's Christ that keeps us. The church is never to be my motivation for a devotion to Christ. Christ is my motivation for devotion to Him.

News flash! Christians will break your heart. The greatest pain you will receive will be at the hands of fellow and professing believers. Not everyone who professes Christ knows Him. Do not place your eyes on others or put your trust in them. Believers may be saints, but they are still tempted with and prone to sin. Keep your eyes on Christ and trust in Him. You need the Church, and the Church needs you!

Let me make something abundantly clear here. Just because someone attends an institutional "church" does not mean that he/she is not a genuine Christian. Likewise, just because someone attends a house church does not mean that he/she is not a genuine Christian. Moreover, just because someone attends a house church does not make it a biblical church. We have already discussed the requirements that make a biblical church. There are house churches that maintain the same erroneous authoritarian hierarchical structure that institutional "churches" possess. These may be dysfunctional "churches" and/or unbiblical "churches," but it does not mean that there are not genuine believers present. We are not somehow the only true Christians, whatever group we belong to. In a biblical church as explained above, we are to live out each and every single one of the "one another" commands in Scripture. This is what makes the world look on in awe.

Sadly, most denominations tend to be cult-like instead of Christ-like and New Testament-based. Here are some identifying behaviours of cults: the group/leader is always right; the group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, any other means is not acceptable or credible; the group/leader determines who is or is not qualified for certain positions or to do certain things; there is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even evil; the group/leader demand absolute unquestioning submission and obedience to their authority (my way or the highway); authoritarianism without accountability; no tolerance for questions or critical inquiry; no disclosure or accountability regarding budget or expenses; full on legalism or outright anti-nomianism (usually the former). If you have an untouchable "leader," whether the founder (such as Luther or Calvin) or your preacher (who eisegetes and abuses the verse "do not touch God's anointed"), that borders on worship and that is indicative of a cult. The people at Elevation Church worship Steven Furtick, not allowing people to question him or speak against him; it is another poisoned Kool-Aid incident waiting to happen. Many people even worship John MacArthur as if he can do no wrong, going so far as to call him the "Evangelical Pope." When you impose laws or demands on your attendees that are not found in or in line with the New Testament, that is indicative of a cult. Each of the things listed here, the New Testament teaches against. Paul was an authority in the Church, and yet the Bereans questioned him and held him accountable by searching the Scriptures to see if what he taught was true. There is only one Head of the Church, including local bodies, and that is Christ Jesus. Everyone else is equal in every respect and is to follow the Spirit's leading. This is why local house churches planted by Paul were open, spontaneous, and participatory; they were under the Headship of Jesus and led by the Spirit in order for the entire Body to be edified by one another. When there is one mouth and many ears, the Body is missing out on the gifts, knowledge, and experience of the rest of the body, and it suffers from malnutrition, resulting in spiritual immaturity because the religious environment is not conducive to spiritual growth! Our denominations strangle the Headship of Jesus, placing some other man/men between the people and God, which is no different than what the Catholics do with the Pope! This is unbiblical and it results in a dysfunctional "church."

Since I am a nobody, I doubt either Mr. Friel or Mr. Washer will ever see this article. However, I have no doubt that if this article should ever come to the attention of Todd Friel, he will immediately demonstrate his unChrist-like attitude (as he has done on numerous occasions in the past to others) and attempt to attack me left, right, and center, leveling all sorts of ad hominem in my direction at my character. For a so-called "discernment" ministry, Mr. Friel repeatedly demonstrates his lack thereof. That is a shame, because I used to love listening to Way of the Master Radio, which became Wretched Radio. As I said in a previous article, many ministers (I use the term to refer to servants of the Church) in ministry today do not know how to lose; they do not know how to lay their lives down; they do not know how to die. They have never been broken; they have never been crushed. They are dangerous. They will defend themselves at the drop of a hat. They do not know what it means to be silent. They do not know how divinity reacts to pressure. They will attack those who sleight them at the drop of a hat. They are unbroken, they do not know how to lose, they do not know how to die, and they are out there serving the kingdom of God with one hand and destroying God's people with the other hand. None of these ministers were ever in community long enough for the Lord to temper, adjust, break, or transform them. Some of them, when things got hot, they left, they ran away. This is not how we have learned Christ Jesus. These ministers are full of ego and full of pride, and when they are under pressure the flesh gets exposed.

Jesus bids that we follow His example. When Jesus was before the priests, amidst the many false accusations, amidst the lies, He remained silent. When Jesus was before Pilate, amidst the many false accusations, amidst the lies, He remained silent. When Jesus was before Herod, amidst the many false accusations, amidst the lies, He remained silent. As a human being, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. It is difficult to remain silent while people level false accusations and lies against you. It is even more difficult to remain silent while your own hypocrisy is exposed. Selfishness and pride is quite often the immediate response in order to try to justify ourselves. If Mr. Friel wants to attack me and say bad things about me, let him. God is my justification and my vindicator. He will have to answer to Him, not me. I am to love Mr. Friel regardless of what he does to or says about me. I just hope he is able to learn that lesson some day.

Progressive "Christianity"?

Progressive "Christianity" is NO Christianity at all. It is no different than Atheistic skepticism, and it is rooted in New Age philosophy. It rejects certainty; it rejects either-or in favour of both-and; and it redefines words falsely, such as atonement. Atonement does not mean "at-one-ment." If you hold to this belief, you are probably a Progressive. Atonement is "reparation for offense or injury; reconciliation of God and mankind." The Greek means "to cover, to propitiate." If you speak of it as "at-one-ment," you have swallowed aspects of New Age teachings. Observe the perverse teachings of "The 8 Points of Progressive 'Christianity'":

1. Believe that following the path of the teacher Jesus can lead to healing and wholeness, a mystical connection to “God,” as well as an awareness and experience of not only the Sacred, but the Oneness and Unity of all life;
 
2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience “God,” the Sacredness, Oneness and Unity of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom, including Earth, in our spiritual journey;
 
3. Seek and create community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
Believers and agnostics,
Those of all races, cultures, and nationalities
Those of all sexual orientations and all gender identities,
Those of all classes and abilities,
Those historically marginalized,
All creatures and plant life;

 
4. Know that the way we behave towards one another and Earth is the fullest expression of what we believe, therefore we vow to walk as Jesus might have walked in this world with radical compassion, inclusion, and bravery to confront and positively change the injustices we experience as well as those we see others experiencing;
 
5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma;
 
6. Work toward peace and justice among all people and all life on Earth;
 
7. Protect and restore the integrity of our Earth and all of Creation;
 
8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love on this journey toward a personally authentic and meaningful faith.

I hate to break it to you, but Jesus was not just a "good teacher"; He was God Almighty in the flesh. Jesus is not "one way among many"; He is "THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life; and NO ONE comes to the Father except through HIM." Progressive "Christianity" has made a "Jesus" and a "god" in their own image that they can worship, rejecting the Jesus and God of the Bible, giving themselves a false hope. If they do not repent of their idolatry and come to the biblical Jesus, they will find themselves in Hell for all eternity. Jesus stood on absolutes, and He was the Absolute (as His statement above makes clear)!

Progressives also fail to grasp and understand the Gospel. Jesus is the Gospel (Good News). Jesus forgives sins, which only God can do. It is about the Person and work of Jesus; His life, death, and resurrection. In the Old Testament He was predicted. In the Gospels He was revealed. In the Acts He was preached. In the Epistles He was explained. In Revelation He is expected. Paul sums up the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:2-4. This is the first Creed.

There is a reason why Emergent churches, Progressive churches, and Prosperity churches are becoming ecumenical and joining with the Catholic church. They have rejected Christ, His Spirit, and His Word. The truth is not in them! They can easily side with the Catholic church because it is void of truth, too. It is why Rick Warren can hold hands with all these false religions and claim we are one. Perennialism (the belief that all religious traditions share a single truth) is a heresy.

Checking Our Heroes of the Faith

Augustine

• Augustine believed that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that lust during sex—even among married Christians—was wrong.
• Augustine believed that the use of contraception to prevent children was perverting the purpose of marriage, "committing adultery within marriage" and "turning the bed-chamber into a brothel."
• Augustine believed that if you are going to teach Scripture, you must have a knowledge of the natural world, mathematics, music, science, history, the liberal arts, and a mastery of dialectics (the science of disputation).
• Augustine believed that sacramental baptism produces regeneration and is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
• Augustine believed it was permissible to use force against heretics.
• Augustine believed that the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist) was necessary for salvation.
• Augustine held to a dualistic view of the world, which was heavily influenced by non-Christian philosophy.
• Augustine believed that a person can fall from grace and lose their salvation.
• Augustine believed that Mary (mother of Jesus) was a perpetual virgin.
• Augustine believed in praying for the dead.
• Augustine believed infants were subject to eternal death unless baptized (baptismal regeneration).

Martin Luther

• Luther despised Jewish people, believing that they deserved persecution (theologically based, not racially based).
• Luther held to several shocking views about marriage and sex.
• Luther denied the canonicity of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
• Luther believed it was justified—and even divinely ordered—that civil disobedience be punished severely, as demonstrated in the Peasant's War.
• Luther believed that heretics should be put to death.
• Luther believed that writing in anger, using profanity, and shaming his enemies by name-calling was justified.
• Luther believed that all physical ailments were the work of Satan.
• Luther ridiculed and disparaged some of his opponents in the Reformation.

John Calvin

• Calvin believed that executing some unrepentant heretics was justifiable.
• Calvin believed that the Eucharist provides an undoubted assurance of eternal life.
• Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambaste his opponents with vicious names.
• Calvin believed that some of the Old Testament capital offences should be enforced today.
• Calvin believed that Jewish people were impious, inauthentic, and lacked common sense.

Charles Spurgeon

• Spurgeon believed smoking cigars was not wrong, and that it could be done "to the glory of God."
• Spurgeon believed going into debt was not acceptable. [He wasn't wrong.]
• Spurgeon thought the idle (those who didn't work) were beyond hope and it wasn't worth wasting time trying to improve them.
• Spurgeon did not believe in allowing music in worship.
• Spurgeon leaned Left in his politics.
• Spurgeon believed that the supernatural healing of sicknesses still occurred. [My understanding of this is that he prayed for the sick and they were remarkably healed. I don't think he believed in supernatural healing by means of laying on of hands.]
  
• Spurgeon believed that even the strongest of Christians may face seasons of depression, despair, and doubt. [He wasn't wrong.]
• Spurgeon believed he heard God's voice, and it told him to keep preaching without a college education (though he does not say whether the voice was audible or a mere impression).
• Spurgeon believed in what some would call giving "prophetic words" to people, knowing things about them beyond natural means.
• Spurgeon believed God answered the prayers of people before they were converted to Christ.

Martin Luther was correct in that the word "priest" finds its roots in both the pagan religions and the Jewish religion. He was also correct in detesting the word "church" as a translation for ekklesia, which refers to an assembly or a congregation of those called out from the world and to God.

John Calvin was correct in that all humans are born in sin and deserving of eternity in Hell, but that God saves certain ones by His grace and leaves the rest to themselves. You see this with the elect angels; you see this with choosing Israel over other nations; and you see this with regard to the many individuals within Israel over other individuals, including older family members.

Charles Spurgeon was correct in believing that ordination was not important [see God's Ordination Requires Not Approval of Men]. He was also correct in being against the use of honourific titles [see Do Not Be Called "Pastor" and Do Not Revere A Reverend!].

Historical Marriage and Divorce

If you have had the chance to read either of my two books on this issue—Divorcing Divorce or The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage, you will notice from the following quotes from the early Church that for the first 200 years after the crucifixion of Christ Jesus, the Church taught the exact same thing that I teach from the Bible in my books. Once you hit the 4th century, however, their beliefs, teachings, and practices concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage begin to get more convoluted and corrupt, aiming to please the flesh rather than answer to God.

According to all the passages pertaining to divorce, everyone (all 4 people) in a divorce-remarriage proceeding is said to be guilty of adultery. Take note that the adultery is taking place after the divorce through remarriage! It is not happening prior to divorce. (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). In other words, if your spouse has not died, then to remarry is to commit adultery. According to the middle voice of the Greek grammar, which is present tense continuous, you are in a constant state of adultery every second you remain in that unsanctioned second union.

Hermas

“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single [1 Cor. 7:11a]. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery [Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18a]” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart’ [Matt. 5:28]. And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery’ [Matt. 5:32b; Luke 16:18b]. According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts” (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality’ [Matt. 5:32a; 19:9]. And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive [Rom. 7:3a]. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says [Matt. 32b; Luke 16:18b]; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery [Matt. 5:32a]. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband” (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives [Rom. 7:3a], so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her [Matt. 32b; Luke 16:18b]” (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Elvira

“Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive Communion” (Canon 8 [A.D. 300]).

…

“Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited [Mark 10:12]. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world [Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:39]” (Canon 9).

“If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death” (Canon 10).

Basil the Great

“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

“No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another [Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:39]” (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).

“You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’ [Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9]” (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).

Jerome

“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another [Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39]” (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).

“Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives [Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:39]” (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Pope Innocent I

“[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives [Mark 10:12; Rom. 7:3a], and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead” (Letters 2:13:15 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery [Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18a]” (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

“A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication [Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39]. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication [Matt. 5:32b; Luke 16:18b]” (ibid., 2:4:4).

“Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live [Rom. 7:2a; 1 Cor. 7:39a], nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).

“In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19).

Biblically understood, fornication is pre-marital sex. Pay attention to the story of Joseph and Mary. They were not yet married, yet referred to each other as "husband" and "wife." Because he thought she was guilty of committing fornication, he was seeking to divorce her. How can you divorce someone you are not yet married to?!? This is where understanding their culture is important and not trying to impose your culture upon the Bible! They had a betrothal period, which, if you were so inclined, you could liken to our engagement period. So, before you are married, if your partner committed fornication during your "engagement" period, you could dismiss him/her. Once the two of you have been joined together in marriage before God and the sexual union has taken place, you are not allowed to divorce (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). If you do, then you are to remain single for the rest of your life, or you are to be reconciled to your spouse (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

Many a professed Christian will not like these words because they oppose their flesh. Sorry, but this is the Word of God, and it is to be obeyed. Scripture is not subject to the sinful desires of your flesh. Here is a point I want you to grasp clearly, because it has grave consequences: God will judge the fornicator and the adulterer (Heb. 13:4). What does 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 say? Fornicators and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God! What does Galatians 5:19-21 say? Fornication and adultery are evident deeds of the flesh and will not inherit the kingdom of God. The Greek grammar says that if you are in a second marriage while your first spouse lives, you are in a constant state of adultery, which means you should be very fearful of your situation. If you have truly repented, what does repentance look like in this scenario? True repentance would involve leaving the unsanctioned second union. Whether you like it or not, and regardless of the lies any other preacher may try to feed you, this is the biblical truth. If you cannot accept it, then you cannot be His disciple. Pure and simple.

Grave Soaking: More Charistmatic Mysticism

What is "grave soaking"? Grave soaking (also known as "grave sucking" or "mantle grabbing") is the demonic phenomenon of physically lying across the grave of a deceased Christian for the purpose of "soaking up" (like a sponge) the Holy Spirit's "anointing" upon that person, that was supposed "left behind" in their bones after they passed away. This aberrant and demonic practice originated with New Apostolic Reformation false teacher and false prophet Bill Johnson within Bethel Church in Redding, California. This nonsense now exists throughout other Charismatic Word of Faith institutions as well.

This ridiculous notion comes from a false understanding of the "mantle" (or cloak) that Old Testament prophets sometimes wore as a sign of their calling from God, and quite possibly a false interpretation, and proof-text, of 2 Kings 13:21. Elijah used his "mantle" as a symbol of his ministry under God's authority (1 Kings 19:15-16; 2 Kings 2:1-11). After Elijah was caught up to Heaven, Elisha picked up his "mantle," which then became the symbol of his ministry under God' authority (2 Kings 2:14). Elijah passing his "mantle" on to his protégé, Elisha, was a symbolic act. There are no inherent spiritual powers within an object or a person! All power comes from God! "Grave soaking" is sheer mysticism at its best, which has nothing to do with Christianity in the least. It is witchcraft!

If this were even remotely possible, when you go to some deceased Christian's grave to "soak up" their "anointing," how do you know that someone else has not already been there and "absorbed" it first? Maybe someone else was there and had just left 5 minutes before you showed up. Is there an unlimited amount of "anointing" to be "soaked up"?

What about those who lay on the stage inside Charismatic institutions and try to "soak up" the speaker's "anointing"? If you could do such a thing, you have just stolen their "anointing, which means they are no longer anointed. The aberrant and demonic teachings and practices that come out of Charismaticism and the New Apostolic Reformation just keep getting wackier and wackier. It is quite clear that the members of these "churches" are not Christians in the least, by any stretch of the meaning, in any way, shape, or form. These members have been deceived, but they are not Christians! How any legitimate Christian could take this demonic nonsense seriously is beyond me. How these ignorant fools could believe that the Holy Spirit would tell someone to drop kick an old woman in the face or body slam someone in the aisle is astounding. If ignorance is bliss, these individuals are clearly living in Paradise.

"Grave soaking" is the work of the devil, and these people have given way to doctrines of demons!

The Five-fold Lunacy

Charismatics have this concept of restoring the "five-fold ministry." Where does this concept come from? It comes from Ephesians 4:11.

"And He gave some as [1] apostles, and some as [2] prophets, and some as [3] evangelists, and some as [4] pastors and [5] teachers..."

First of all, these are not titles or positions within the Church; they are functions! These are gifts!

Second of all, "shepherds and teachers" (the correct interpretation here of the word poimen) is the exact same gift/function. It is introduced in the Greek with a single article. Teachers are shepherds.

While these false teachers and false prophets speak of their god restoring this "five-fold ministry," this verse actually reveals only four (4) functions! So Charismatics are trying to restore something that does not exist. Moreover, they are trying to "restore" something they clearly do not have an understanding of. For more information on this, please see these previous articles:

• The Gift of Apostleship
• The Biblical Truth About Spiritual Gifts
• The Biblical Truth About Tongues
  

The website GotQuestions.org gives a rather unsatisfactory answer that is lacking in its understanding:

"What was the role of the apostles and prophets? It was to proclaim God’s revelation, to teach the new truth the church would need to grow and thrive. The apostles and prophets completed this mission. How? By giving us the Word of God. The Word of God is the completed revelation of God."

First, that is not the role of the apostles and prophets. Their sole purpose was not to give the complete revelation of God. That is a rather shallow and extremely small view of the purpose Jesus gave them! The apostles were missionaries, sent to evangelize the lost and plant churches. They were to start in Jerusalem and go to the entire world. Paul and Barnabas were members of the church in Antioch for several years before the church sent them on their apostolic/missionary journeys. When Jesus was walking with them, He first sent out the 12, then He sent out the 70. The 12 were later sent by Him as "apostles" (which is what the word apostolos means—"sent ones"), and others were sent later. The New Testament Scriptures record for us 23 apostles.

1. Jesus — Hebrews 3:1
2. Simon Peter — Matthew 10:2
3. Andrew — Matthew 10:2
4. James the son of Zebedee — Matthew 10:2
5. John — Matthew 10:2
6. Philip — Matthew 10:3
7. Bartholomew — Matthew 10:3
8. Thomas — Matthew 10:3
9. Matthew — Matthew 10:3
10. James the son of Alphaeus — Matthew 10:3
11. Thaddaeus, or Judas the son of James — Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:16
12. Simon the Zealot — Matthew 10:4
13. Judas Iscariot — Matthew 10:4
14. Matthias, the replacement for Judas — Acts 1:26
15. Paul — Galatians 1:1
16. Barnabas — 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Acts 14:4, 14
17. James, the Lord's Brother — Galatians 1:19
18. Silas (Silvanus) — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
19. Timothy — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
20. Epaphroditus — Philippians 2:25 [the Greek uses the word apostolos, but most English translations translate it as something other than apostle]
21. Apollos — 1 Corinthians 4:6-9; 3:22
    
22. Two unnamed apostles — 2 Corinthians 8:23

Titus was most likely an apostle, too (though Scripture never addresses him as such), because he had the same function as Timothy. Neither Timothy nor Titus were "pastors"; they were apostolic workers.

Second, you need to ask who these "prophets" were? I am guessing that most Christians would inform you that these are the Old Testament prophets. But does this make sense? If Jesus gave gifts to the His Church, of which apostles and prophets are a part of it, do you really think this is referring to the Old Testament prophets? Especially considering these same people will argue and tell us that the Church did not begin until Pentecost? How could Jesus give something to the Church before its existence? According to Scripture, Jesus gave these gifts to the Church after His ascension, so it has to be something other than the Old Testament prophets. In the book of Acts, when Paul was going to return to Jerusalem, some of the brothers prophesied of what would happen to him if he did. These individuals were prophets. They were not prophesying new revelation, however!

Early References To Infant Baptism

When you examine circumcision, the sign and seal of the old covenant, and all that it encompasses, and then compare it to baptism, the sign and seal of the new covenant, and all that it encompasses, and especially in light of Acts 2:39—"For 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"—it makes sense that infants would naturally be included. After all, if male infants were included in the old covenant at 8 days of age, before they could express faith of any kind, why would they suddenly be excluded from a covenant that is supposed to be better and more inclusive, which would now include female infants as well? If infants were included under the old covenant, logically they would be worse off than they had been previously if they were not included under the new covenant. Understanding this, infant baptism makes complete sense.

However, if we are looking at what the Bible says alone, without inference, it makes sense why a person should not be baptized until they express personal faith. Looking at how quickly Church life and practice became corrupted and ended up as an authoritative institutional hierarchy, it is not hard to believe that the same could have happened with baptism. Especially considering the fact of how quickly baptism went from a sign and seal of the new covenant and being in Christ to becoming the means by which salvation is achieved—baptismal regeneration.

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Irenaeus, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born ... If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2, 5 [A.D. 253]).

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith! ... ‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7, 28 [A.D. 388]).

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (John Chrysostom, Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Augustine, Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

It is true that most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism: Roman Catholics, Eastern Greek and Oriental Orthodox Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc. In fact, most Christians throughout the centuries of church history have practiced infant baptism. But this does not mean that it is biblical. It may very well be biblical, but this does not make it so. We have seen just how quickly the early Church got corrupted, and that does not negate the possibility that infant baptism was a part of that. If we stand on the Bible alone, there is no text explicitly commanding, or even hinting at, infant baptism. While it makes sense that the household baptisms would logically include children, especially considering how the person who believed is in the singular and the people who were being baptized is in the plural, it is still an inference.

Both in the Bible and in the earliest years of Christianity, there is a lack of explicit evidence for and against infant baptism. Both are arguments from silence. While there is no evidence within Scripture of anyone explicitly baptizing their children, there is also no evidence within Scripture of anyone explicitly raising their children in believing households and becoming baptized later in life. If infants should not be baptized, then what exactly did Peter mean by Acts 2:39—"For 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"?

Just because something is not explicitly and unequivocally mentioned in the Bible does not make it wrong. For example, the Trinity is nowhere explicitly or unequivocally spoken of in the pages of the Bible. Yet, the concept is clearly there. God required the seal of the covenant to be made to the children in Abraham's line, which now includes anyone who is in Christ, the heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:17-18). The fact that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace can be seen in Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul refers to our  "circumcision" as "baptism": "In [Jesus] you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism..."

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).

When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of the country you were born in 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 that you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision, and would appear to also be true concerning baptism (though not necessarily). 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 them. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself (Isaac and Jacob), or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself (Ishmael and Esau). Either way, the sign and seal of the covenant of grace was a witness either for or against him. If he rejected the faith, he wore the sign and seal of the covenant hypocritically, which only served to increase his condemnation. "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet. 2:21).

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? How does one explain 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children are excluded from the new covenant whereby they were included in the old covenant? (We are not talking about the Mosaic covenant, which has been done away with [see Hebrews], but of the Abrahamic covenant, which Galatians 3:15-18 makes clear that the Mosaic covenant could not and did not abolish, make obsolete, or replace.) "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 Paul say that we were circumcised by baptism ("in Him you were also circumcised . . . in baptism", Col. 2:11-12)?

David C. Jones poses the following questions: "Are [these little ones, by virtue of their parents' relationship to Christ,] also brought into a new relationship with Christ even though they are too young intellectually to apprehend the gospel and to appropriate it for themselves in the conscious exercise of repentance and faith? Does their psychological inability to fulfill the conditions required of adult converts render the idea of discipleship meaningless so far as infants and small children are concerned? Or, [is their covenant status to be granted and baptism to be administered to them, and] are they to be discipled along with their believing parents, given the solidarity of the family unit?" His question about psychological inability is something we need to consider deeply. What about mentally handicapped persons, who, even in adulthood, have the psychological inability to fulfill the conditions required of adult converts? Does this mean there is no hope for the mentally handicapped? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20).

Irenaeus is the earliest extra-biblical reference to infant baptism. That is 100-150 years after the apostles. This does not mean that it was not practiced earlier, but it also does not mean that it was. While all of what we have just discussed makes complete logical sense, it does not necessarily mean that it is the case. Credo-baptists do not have a defence against anything we have just discussed, other than, "there is no explicit command given in the Bible to baptize infants." If their position is biblically accurate, however, that argument is sufficient enough. Everything we have just talked about needs to be considered when looking at the subject of infant baptism. Pray earnestly about it, not looking for the answer you want to be true, but truly seek the Lord and wait for His response. If you choose not to baptize your children, that is fine, but know that you could potentially be robbing your children of promises God has made to them. If you choose to baptize your children, that is fine, but know that you could potentially be practicing something that is not biblical but arrived through the corruption of the Church over the centuries. "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." While it is true that most denominations practice infant baptism, you must also remember that these denominations resemble many other practices of the Catholic church; some tweaked, some altered, some abrogated, but ultimately their "service" is identical to a Catholic "service." The same is also true of denominations that do not practice infant baptism. Much of their "service" still resembles the Catholic "service" as well. If I am wrong in my position on infant baptism, I pray the Lord brings correction to my understanding. I always want to conform to the Word.