Renewing Your Mind

Brothers and sisters, remember that we are in a war between the thought patterns of this present world and the mind of Jesus. The devil knows that if he can get a foothold on how you think and what you think about, he has gained an invaluable stronghold. Do not yield your mind as a tool for sin and the devil. Renew your mind and become more Christ-like. In the following verses you will find a blueprint on how to obtain the mind of Christ

"How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season, And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers." Psalm 1:1-3

"I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:1-2

"and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind," Ephesians 4:23

"Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation." Romans 12:16

"that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:6

"For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." Romans 12:3

"If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God." Colossians 3:1-3

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma." Ephesians 5:1-2

"The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake. ... Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever." Psalms 23:1-3, 6

"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." Luke 6:45

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Luke 12:34

"For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." 2 Timothy 1:7

"for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light" Ephesians 5:8

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." 2 Corinthians 5:17

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things." Philippians 4:8

Ockham's Razor

Evolutionists believe there is the possibility that an organized universe spontaneously formed out of nothing, but Ockham's Razor would suggest that an intelligent designer was behind it. Every law that governs our universe is against Evolution (e.g., the Laws of Thermodynamics). Every scientific principle is against Evolution. Even mathematics is against Evolution.

Carbon-14 dating is not very accurate to begin with, but after about 50,000 years, carbon-14 dates are not considered highly reliable due to the fact that too few carbon-14 atoms remain to be reliably detected. Ergo, if dinosaurs (dragons) died off "65 million years ago," there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. In fact, due to this assumption and conclusion drawn on assumption, many scientists will not even attempt to date dinosaur bones because they blindly believe them to be older than they really are and to be utterly depleted of any carbon-14. This is why they engage in circular reasoning: dating dinosaur bones by the layer of dirt they are found in, and dating the layer of dirt by the dinosaur bones in it. They refuse to do honest science due to their blind faith. Carbon-14 dating applied to dinosaur bones proves the Earth and the universe to be less than 50,000 years old.

Why do Evolutionists lie to themselves and others concerning the facts and evidence? Because the truth means they are answerable to someone other than themselves, which they do not want.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:18-21

Synthaptō (συνθαπτω)

Immersion has been supported by the equivocal rendering of the verb synthaptō in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12. In Rom. 6:4 the rendering is "buried by baptism"; in Col. 2:12 "buried in baptism." The English word bury is applicable either to burial in earth or in water; but the Greek word synthaptō is applicable only to burial in earth. No one would render it "to immerse." The English word bury can suggest immersion, but the Greek cannot. Consequently, when a person unacquainted with the original reads in the English version of a "burial in baptism" or "by baptism," a burial in water is the only idea that enters his mind; an idea which the Greek positively excludes. For when a dead body is "buried" in a tomb as our Lord was, it comes into no contact with water and is carefully protected from it. Had synthaptō been translated literally by "entombed" instead of "buried," this text never would have been quoted, as it so frequently has been, to prove that Christian baptism is immersion. Christ's entombment or burial in Joseph's sepulcher has not the slightest connection with his baptism at the Jordan and throws no light upon the mode in which he was baptized; and, consequently, it throws no light upon the mode in which his disciples were.

—William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pp.823-834.

Here, once again, is evidence against Baptists eisegetically interpreting Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 as having anything to do with water baptism, or more specifically, "immersion." Not only does the context have nothing to do with water baptism or the mode thereof, but these verses have to do with identification with Christ Jesus. 

As I have repeatedly said in the past, when you have two opposing views, turning to the Greek grammar will decide the case between them conclusively, which means, providing that both are not wrong, that one of the views is wrong and must be obedient and submit to the text and conform their beliefs, or be disobedient and rebel against the text by stubbornly holding to their false beliefs. While the context reveals that neither water baptism nor mode of baptism are in view in these two verses, the use of the Greek word synthaptō (συνθαπτω) further destroys any platform Baptists attempt to use in connection with these verses and their eisegetical interpretation thereof.

A careful study of the Greek words used, the context, the details provided in Scripture, and the circumstantial evidence all destroy the notion that baptism in Scripture is by "immersion." In classic secular usage, the words often meant "to immerse," but one is hard-pressed to attempt to force that meaning upon the usage in the verses of the Septuagint and the New Testament.

The classical meaning of baptō and baptizō is to dip into water, to sink under water, to dye or tinge in a fluid. The classical meaning favors baptism by immersion, as the classical meaning of sacramentum proves that the Christian sacrament is an oath. But in Hebraistic and New Testament Greek, baptō and baptizō are employed in a secondary ceremonial signification to denote a Jewish and Christian rite. Consequently, their meaning in the Septuagint and New Testament must be determined by their ritual and historical use, not by their classical. The word pagans (pagani), etymologically and classically, denoted persons living in the villagers (pagi) outside of the large towns and cities. Classically, pagans were "villagers." As Christianity spread first among the inhabitants of the cities, the villagers were the unevangelized; and thus "pagan" came to mean "heathen" instead of villager." Similarly, baptō and baptizō, which in heathenism denoted any unceremonial, nonritual immersion into water, when adopted by Judaism and Christianity, came to have the secondary signification of a ceremonial sprinkling or effusion of water. And he who argues that baptism means immersion in the Scriptures because in the classics the primary meaning of baptō and baptizō is "to immerse" commits the same error with him who should argue that a pagan is a villager because this was the original signification of paganus or that the Christian sacramentum is an oath and not a symbol because this is its meaning in Livy and Tacitus.

—William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pp.821-822.

The four volumes by James W. Dale dealing with the history of baptizō (βαπτιζω), and Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, also destroy the notion that baptism in Scripture is by "immersion." While in classic secular usage, the words often meant "to immerse," that is not what they solely or entirely meant. If they solely and entirely meant "to immerse," then our English Bibles would have rendered each of these words as "immerse" when translated.

In the English Bible baptizō has generally been transliterated to give us the word baptize. When a word is transliterated into English from another language, it is quite often an indication of a multiplicity of meanings. Thus, if the word baptizō had lent itself to easy translation, an obvious English word would have been used to translate it. If baptizō had meant only "immerse," then immerse would be the word used. We would speak of "John the Immerser." Or we would recite, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

—James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith, p.598.

We cannot stubbornly hold to traditions we have been taught. Our beliefs must conform to the truths of Scripture. I was raised as an Immersionist, believing that baptism was by immersion alone. For the past two and a half years I have been studying the issue of baptism on and off. The more I studied, the weaker the Baptist position became. Because I am a seeker of the truth, when God reveals it, I conform my beliefs accordingly—the way a good Christian ought to. Stubbornness and pride need to be replaced with humility. There is nothing wrong with being wrong or admitting that you have believed wrongly for so long. Freedom comes when through humility you submit to the truth and conform your beliefs accordingly. The Christian ought to love correction because it draws us closer to Christ and makes us more like Him. Be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures daily.

Theological Definitions Must Measure Up To Scripture

In his Systematic Theology, John M. Frame writes, "Even though there are none to few definitions in the Bible, Scripture, not any theological definition, is our ultimate authority. Theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around."¹ [Emphasis mine.] Mr. Frame is exactly correct. This corresponds well with a favourite quote of mine from Don Fortner:

Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .

   no creed to defend,

   no denomination to maintain, and

   no confession to bind our minds.

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.

—Don Fortner

Apply both of those quotes to the doctrine of Sola Fide and then compare what Scripture actually says against the definition and meaning of Sola Fide: "we are justified by faith alone apart from the need for works." The truth is, we are saved by grace alone (Eph. 2:5, 8-9). We are saved by grace alone through faith in the death of Christ Jesus alone.

It is good for brothers in the Lord to wrestle through matters of faith, doctrine, theology, and truth, to learn from each other and to sharpen each other for kingdom use. If you are not stubborn and proud, and if you are open to challenges that examine your faith and encourage you to grow in truth, then here are some blog entries addressing the "Sola Fide" issue:

• By Faith Alone? I Don't Think So!
• Sola Fide?
• What Is Meant By Works?
• James' "Works": Commentary Evidence
• James' "Works": John Calvin's Commentary
• Final Words On James' "Justification By Works"
• Justification: Romans 4 and James 2
• Types of Works
• Formulas of Faith
• Faith: An Example
• A Frustrating Issue
• The Contrast Between Faith and Works
• The Problem

When our theological definition says "justified by faith alone" and the Bible says "justified not by faith alone," it is a very big thing! Emphasis regarding justification should not be placed on either faith or works. A heavy emphasis on either faith or works is a ditch from the truth. If the works we do are a means of being right with God, then they will damn us straight to hell. If the works we do are a means of being obedient to God through faith, then we are in the same arena with Abraham. Faith and works go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated. Our faith must work itself out (works) and our works must be done in and by faith. Faith alone and works alone will damn us to hell.

---

¹ John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, p.4.

Baptism and Making Disciples

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 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; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20

As James Montgomery Boice writes in his Foundations of the Christian Faith, "It is evident from those verses that baptism is an initiatory sacrament belonging to the task of making disciples."¹ [Emphasis mine.] What do you suppose the task of Christian parents is with regard to their children? Obviously it is making disciples.

John P. Sartelle wrote:

"It may seem that all you need to do is have your child baptized, and all will be well. That is what many modern church members think. They bring their children and have them baptized as if it were the ultimate fire insurance. But from that moment on you can see no difference between their home and the atheist family next door.
If you and your wife don't love each other as the Bible commands, if you don't teach your children Scripture, if you don't discipline them as God's Word teaches, if you don't pray with and for them daily, if Christ is not the center of your home, then you may baptize your children, but they will grow up just like children from non-Christian homes."²

Bryan Chapell wrote:

"We must confess that some bring their children for this sacrament because of the sweetness of the ceremony, or because of the traditions of family and church, or even with the misguided expectation that somehow 'holy water' will magically protect their child from hell. Yet neither sentiment nor tradition nor superstition is sufficient reason for believers to bring their children to be baptized. And, thankfully, such reasons are not the basis of our church's practice. We baptize infants because we believe that the Bible teaches us to do so."³

God said this about Abraham:

"For I have chosen him in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." Genesis 18:19

It was Abraham's responsibility to teach his child about God in every facet of his home. Circumcision was not insurance that God would automatically save Isaac. It was the sign of a covenant that he would raise his son in the Lord and that God would have regard for him. It is the same with baptism. Baptism is not insurance that God will automatically save your children. It is the sign of a covenant that you will raise your children in the Lord and that God will have regard for them. Here is just some of what Scripture has to say on the subject of Christian parents making disciples out of their children:

"And you shall teach [these words, which I am commanding you today,] diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Deuteronomy 6:7
 
"And you shall teach [these words of mine] to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up." Deuteronomy 11:19
 
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

Parents who bring their children to be baptized are presented with this vow:

Do you now unreservedly dedicate your children to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavour to set before him/her a godly example, that you will pray with and for him/her, that you will teach him/her the doctrines of our holy faith, and that you will strive, by all the means of God's appointment, to bring him/her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

If these parents are bringing a second, third, fourth, etc., child to be baptized, they should be asked this question in addition to the vow:

Have you so kept the vow you made before God with your previous child that you can take this vow with a sincere and clear conscience?

Mr. Sartelle warns parents against making vows they do not intend to follow through on (much like wedding vows to many couples these days) and that do not mean a thing to them: "Parents, don't make a vow to the Lord just as a social nicety. Imagine, coming before the living God and mouthing words that mean nothing to you just to gain social respectability! If you do that, the blood of your children will be upon your own head. It shall be written of you in eternity that you trifled with the Almighty God."⁴

---

¹ James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith, p.597.
² John P. Sartelle, What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism, p.19. 
³ Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants?, p.1.
⁴ John P. Sartelle, What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism, p.21.  

To Him Who Overcomes

"To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God." Rev. 2:7

"He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death." Rev. 2:11

"To him who overcomes, to him I will give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it." Rev. 2:17

"He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." Rev. 3:5

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." Rev. 3:12

"He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." Rev. 3:21

"He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son." Rev. 21:7

The pathway to glory is not one of flowery ease. There are . . .
   trials to be endured,
   difficulties to be surmounted,
   temptations to be resisted,
   and enemies to be encountered!

The Christian is called . . .
   to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ,
   to put on the whole armor of God,
   and to fight the fight of faith.

To stimulate and cheer him in the conflict, many encouraging assurances are given—especially made to those who press forward through all difficulties, and in the strength of Christ overcome all their spiritual foes:

O Lord, be my strength, give me courage, endurance, and holy fortitude! Increase my faith—that I may overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil, and at last come off more than conqueror through Him who has loved me!

"Every Day!" Author Unknown, 1872

Baptist Eisegesis Concerning Baptism

When reading Scripture, Baptists latch onto phrases like "went up immediately from the water" (Matt. 3:16), "immediately coming up out of the water" (Mark 1:10), "there was much water there" (John 3:23), "they both went down into the water" (Acts 8:38), and "they came up out of the water" (Acts 8:39), and read into them what they want them to say. This is known as eisegesis.

First of all, let us examine two Greek words that appear in the accounts of Matthew and Mark. The Greek word anabaino (αναβαινω) translated as "went up" and "coming up" means "to go up, ascend up, climb." The Greek word apo (απο) translated as "from" and "out of" can also be translated as "away from." In other words, both passages make complete sense when we understand they are speaking of Jesus walking up onto the shore away from the water, where He would then pray and the Holy Spirit would descend upon Him: "Jesus ascended immediately away from the water" and "immediately ascending away from the water." "Up out of the water" in no way indicates that Jesus had been submerged under the water.

Jay E. Adams mistakenly says, "In Mark's account ek is used, but in Matthew, apo." According to Jay P. Green's The Interlinear Bible, The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the Greek text found in The English Hexapla, the Greek text of the Textus Receptus, and the symbols and marginal notes of The Newberry Bible, ek (εκ) does not appear in Mark until verse 11. Apo (απο) is used in verse 10. Only according to the Greek text of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is the word ek used. Ek appears in four (4) manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and Regius) while apo appears in all the others. Wayne Grudem erroneously argues, "The Greek text specifies that he came 'out of' (ek) the water, not that he came away from it (this would be expressed by Gk. apo)." Mr. Grudem is being deceitful with those words because even in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece in Matthew's account, the word apo is used, which Mr. Grudem acknowledges means "away from." Further, he should know very well that ek can be translated as "from" or even "away from," but apo cannot be translated as "out of."

• Mark 1:11 - there came a voice from heaven
• Mark 6:14 - the Baptist was risen from the dead
• Mark 6:16 - he is risen from the dead
• Mark 7:31 - departing from the coasts of Tyre
• Mark 9:9 - were risen from the dead
• Mark 9:10 - rising from the dead should mean
• Mark 10:20 - these have I observed from my youth
• Mark 10:37 - one on thy right hand, and the other on they left
• Mark 10:40 - to sit on my right hand an don my left
• Mark 11:8 - cut down branches off the trees
• Mark 11:20 - fig tree dried up from the roots
• Mark 11:30 - from heaven, or of men?
• Mark 12:25 - when they shall rise from the dead
• Mark 12:30 - thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength
• Mark 12:33 - And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength
• Mark 12:36 - Sit thou on my right hand
• Mark 13:27 - his elect from the four winds
• Mark 13:25 - I will drink no more of the fruit
• Mark 15:27 - one on his right hand, and the other on
• Mark 16:3 - roll us away the stone from the door
• Mark 16:19 - sat on the right hand of God

Second of all, John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there were many streams there." Aenon is the plural of fountain or spring. Therefore, "many streams" is a more accurate translation than "much water," agreeing with the Greek text. If we were to go to Aenon today, we would find many springs trickling through marshy meadow on their way to the Jordan. Why would John leave an abundance of water at the Jordan for a bunch of springs? Simple. The Jordan was filthy. We know this from Naaman's words: "Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" (2 Kings 5:12). At this time of year, the Jordan was a foul, muddy flood that overflowed its banks (Josh. 3:15). John knew the insistent requirement of the law, that "he should sprinkle them with clean water" for baptism, so the cool clear water of the "many springs" at Aenon would be a more suitable location.

Last of all, we know from geography that Gaza was some forty or fifty miles southwest of Jerusalem. Regarding the Ethiopian Eunuch's baptism, the Bible informs us that this was "a desert place" (v. 26). If we were to go to that location today, it would still be a desert place. The only water to be found is the occasional spring that trickles from the hillside and forms a small pool before disappearing into the sand. The Greek text shows the Eunuch's surprise at finding water. Stories in the Old Testament inform us that this was a poorly watered area where wells had to be dug just to provide water for animals. There are accounts in the story of Abraham of such wells (Gen. 21:25-31), and Abraham's servant who went to find Isaac a wife stopped at such a well where Rebekah came to get water (Gen. 24:10-21). From Genesis 26:12-22, Exodus 2:16-22, and other passages, we learn the value of these wells in that region. These wells were valuable property. These logical facts concerning the quality of the land do not point to a good chance of finding enough water for immersion.

Furthermore, "down into" and "up out of" do not in any way indicate being submerged under the water. Eis (εις), which may also be translated "unto," "to," "toward," occurs 11 times in Acts 8 and only once is it translated (likely mistranslated) as "into" (v.38). If there is a creek and you walk to the center of it, you have walked "down into" the water. If you walk from the center of the creek to the shore, you have walked "up out of" the water. Baptists are guilty of eisegesis regarding these phrases, reading into them more than is actually there, wanting to see in them what they desire to see in them. In his Christian Theology, Millard Erickson says, "immersionism seems the most adequate of the several positions," but he is completely and utterly incorrect. Close examination of the details provided in Scripture as well as the circumstantial evidence surrounding each case of baptism in the New Testament leaves no room for immersionism.

Jay Adams On Remarriage

"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28a

In Jay E. Adams' Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, he argues:

There are several particulars regarding this passage that should be noted:

1. The word translated "released" in both instances is the same word, luo.
2. To be released from a wife in the second instance must mean what it does in the first or the intended contrast that is set up would be lost.
3. It is plain that divorce is in view in both instances. Clearly, when Paul says that one must not seek to be released from a wife he doesn't mean by death! The release in view can mean only one thing—release by divorce. So too, the release in the second instance must refer to release from the bonds of marriage by divorce (N.B., to be "released" is the opposite of being "bound" to a wife).
4. Paul allows for the remarriage of those released from marriage bonds (i.e., divorced) even in a time of severe persecution when marriage, in general, is discouraged (v. 28).
5. And, to boot, he affirms that there is no sin in remarrying.

There are a lot of assumptions made here, as well as conclusions drawn on assumptions. First of all, the words in both instances are not the same. The first word is lusis (λυσις) [Strong's 3080] while the second word is luo (λυω) [Strong's 3089]. Regarding the second word, AMG's The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament says, "figuratively (Luke 13:16; 1 Cor 7:27, "Art thou free from a wife?" [a.t.] in antithesis with dedesai, bound, from deo [1210], to bind; Sept.: Ps 105:20; 146:7)." Similarly, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says, "spoken of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married, 1 Co. vii. 27." Notice, please, how it says a "single man." A divorced man is not single. According to the synoptic gospels, a divorced man is still married (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) because he is still bound to his wife (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). Deo (δεω) [Strong's 1210] is used in both Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, and being the antithesis—direct opposite—to luo (λυω), it is highly unlikely that divorce is in view with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28a.

Second of all, Paul in no way allows for remarriage. To do so would be going against God. Anyone who says that Paul allows for divorce and remarriage is blind to the plain reading and truth of Scripture. Paul made it clear in verse 10 where God stands regarding divorce and remarriage. For Paul to go against God would be disobedience and rebellion. "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord..." What was it that God said? "The wife should not divorce her husband (but if she does divorce, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (vv. 10-11). Why? Because "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Last of all, Paul does not say there is no sin in remarrying; he says there is no sin in marrying. The single man who has never married before and the single man whose wife has passed away are both free to marry. A divorced man is not single because he is still bound to his wife, as expressed in the synoptic gospels (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). Even Paul says that the only dissolution to marriage is death (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).

When Christians fail to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to obtain the full counsel of the Word of God, they inevitably make errors in translation and application. Verse-by-verse exposition of the Bible cannot ignore context nor should it be done in isolation of related passages. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Adams is a godly man, but unfortunately he is in error on this issue. When Paul says what he says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, obviously his words in verses 12-16 and 27-28 cannot contradict this. If those instructions came directly from God, which Paul is making abundantly clear is the case, then Paul's own words cannot and will not go against those of God.

Yes, the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage is a complex and emotionally charged issue. Nevertheless, we must speak the truth regardless of others' feelings, opinions, and hardness of heart. If people understood the meaning and purpose of marriage to begin with, they would have a different outlook on it and divorce would never be an option. Divorce and remarriage are items that concern the selfish and self-centered who think only of themselves and think everything is all about their individual happiness. It has no thought of the spouse or of the children. Christians need to stop trying to pit Paul's words against those of God, turning Paul into a disobedient rebel. If your understanding of a passage contradicts the clear understanding of other passages, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of that passage.

Augustus Strong On Baptism

Augustus Hopkins Strong makes some blind and fallacious assertions in his Systematic Theology regarding baptism, which are based solely on his assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, front-loading, and eisegesis. He states that baptism is "immersion, and immersion only," claiming that the "command to baptize is a command to immerse." He asserts he can show this from:

1. The usage of Greek writers—including the church Fathers, when they do not speak of the Christian rite, and the authors of the Greek version of the Old Testament.
2. Every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either requires or allows the meaning 'immerse.'

Wayne Grudem likewise makes the same blind and fallacious assertions in his Systematic Theology: "The practice of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptized was immersed or put completely under the water and then brought back up again. Baptism by immersion is therefore the 'mode' of baptism or the way in which baptism was carried out in the New Testament."

First, the works of James W. Dale regarding the historical usage of baptizo (βαπτιζω) utterly obliterate Mr. Strong's (and Mr. Grudem's) ridiculous assertions. Even the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament does not back Mr. Strong's position. Furthermore, 600 years of secular Greek history using a word in a particular way has no bearing whatsoever on how the writers of the New Testament used a word. Sometimes they would use a word completely different from how the rest of secular society used it. If βαπτιζω meant "to immerse," then the word would have been translated as "immerse" in our English Bibles and John would have been known as John the Immersionist or John the Immerser. The fact is, βαπτιζω has been transliterated, and not translated, because there exists no specific word with which to translate this term. It is used throughout secular Greek history in numerous and varied ways. The translators of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament) used βαπτιζω to translate the Hebrew word ba'ath (בעת) in Isaiah 21:4, meaning "terrify, startle, fall upon": i.e., to input fear. The literal translation is: "My heart goes astray and lawlessness baptizes my soul." The writer was changed from a state of quiet trust in God to fearfulness as a result of seeing great wickedness and knowing that terrible judgments would follow.

Second, Mr. Strong demonstrates his blind assertions based on assumptions and conclusions drawn on assumptions when he fallaciously states that "every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either requires or allows the meaning 'immerse'." Mr. Strong has obviously failed to pay attention to the details of each account of baptism presented in the New Testament, as well as failing to observe the circumstantial evidence surrounding each case. When these are examined, one quickly realizes that there is no room made available for immersion. Not to mention that the practice of immersion is more in line with the rigorous rituals required under the Old Covenant than with the simplicity and ease of service instituted under the New Covenant. If you want to examine the details presented in Scripture as well as the circumstantial evidence surrounding some of these baptisms, please read the following blog entries:

• Jesus' Baptism
• The Ethiopian Eunuch's Baptism
• Paul's Baptism
• The Philippian Jailer's Baptism
  

Mr. Strong makes many other false assertions with regard to baptism—its meaning, mode, and subjects, but I will only address one final absurd assertion of his. He claims that the "proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,—or, in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection." Not only does Mr. Strong eisegetically misapply Romans 6:3-4 here, but once again he fails to pay attention to the witness of the holy Scriptures. "To the law and to the testimony." Baptism identifies us with Christ, whether that identification is true or false. Baptism acts as a witness or testimony either for or against us. In the New Testament, whenever someone made a profession of faith, regardless whether that faith was genuine or not, they were immediately baptized. It was not withheld until they gave "credible evidence that they [had] been regenerated by the Holy Spirit." Judas, Simon Magus, and Demas were all false converts, yet they made professions of faith and were all baptized. They identified themselves with Christ but were never united with Him.

Why the Bible Should Not Contain External Elements

External elements should never be made part of the Holy Bible. Far too many laymen are under the impression that external elements are part of the inspired Scriptures. Unless the external elements are markings that lend to better study of the Bible by indicating to the reader the tense of a word or any related grammar of the original languages so as to enable the reader to better understand the author's intent, or marginal notations to inform the reader of variant readings in different manuscripts, alternate translations of particular words, or literal meanings of particular words, there is no call to add subjective external information that colours how one understands the Bible.

For example, many so-called "study" Bibles contain commentary notes that are rife with error and misinformation. Yet, many laymen are under the misguided impression that these notes are part of the inspired text. When they read these notes, they are under the false impression that that is what is taught by a particular section of Scripture. For further example, some English Bibles contain James Ussher's dates. Many laymen are under the impression that such dates are part of the inspired text. Headings in Bibles vary from translation to translation and some are completely false and unrepresentative of the context of the actual text while a few are outright heretical. Laymen are also under the false impression that these headings are part of the inspired text. In fact, most laymen are ignorant of the fact that chapters and verse numbers were never part of the inspired text.

The problem with many modern translations is that they are not honest. Every modern translation should still follow the example of the the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, and the New American Standard Bible by placing words not found in the original languages in italics or within [square brackets]. By not doing so, these translations are conveying that every word is actually in the original Scriptures. Furthermore, modern translations should also include a notice that informs the reader that chapters and verses were not part of the original Scriptures and inform the reader as to when and why they were added. Sadly, most laymen (and even several preachers) are under the impression that each chapter begins and ends crucial information. Chapters and verses do not indicate the end of one topic and the beginning of another.

If external elements are going to be added to the Bible, it needs to be stated up front at the beginning of the Bible that such elements are not part of the inspired text and that they should be approached with great caution. Cross references are acceptable external elements, but should likewise be stated up front as to their purpose and that they are not part of the inspired text and may be subject to error. If commentary notes are added, especially to Bibles of vanity carrying a particular person's name, it should be stated up front that these notes are not to be understood as inspired, that they are the author's personal interpretation, and that such notes should be approached with great caution, encouraging the reader to study the Bible for themselves like the Bereans rather than simply taking the author's word for the interpretations given. Only the Holy Scriptures are inspired. All else is subject to error, including Bible Dictionaries, Bible Lexicons, etc. The only authority pertaining to matters of faith and life is the Holy Bible. Search the Scriptures and let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Every translation should state up front that chapters, verses, marginal notes, cross references, etc., are not inspired and were not part of the inspired text, and to explain their purpose for the reader. When a Bible is placed in someone's hands, that Bible should be able to educate the layman so that they are not under false impressions with regard to the original text. I long to see an actual study Bible published whose aim is to help the reader actually study the Bible. The Newberry Bible comes close, but it also contains external elements that colour one's interpretation and understanding of Scripture by giving the impression that such things are accurate and true (such as Ussher's dates). The grammatical markings are a great help in studying Scripture, and this is the kind of thing a true study Bible should contain. When the grammar is understood, it eliminates the possibility of false interpretations and leaves the reader with one of two options: obey the truth of the revealed text and conform one's beliefs accordingly, or disobey the truth of the revealed text and reject it in favour of one's personal feelings and opinions. Greek grammar will always decide the case between two opposing beliefs as to who is right and who is wrong, providing both are not wrong.

Why should the Bible contain nothing more than the Bible? Why should the Bible not contain certain external elements? Because it colours one's interpretation thereof and does not allow one to see anything else, and it puts one under the impression that such elements were part of the inspired text.