God Doesn’t Deserve All the Credit

It is ironic that all too often God gets no credit for the good that He accomplishes. He continues to provide our daily bread, and salvation remains available. If, however, there is a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or other natural disaster, many quickly blame Him; He also gets credit for bizarre behavior. On December 18th, 2014 a story appeared in the Orlando Sentinel.

Yes, the woman testified in court that she was not aware of her three screaming children in the car with her. “I remember thinking that my children and me needed to be cleansed.” She claimed to have been struggling “with demonic visions” which doctors claimed resulted from “a psychotic break fueled by hormones from pregnancy” (B2). Now she says that she knows there were no angels or demons involved, and she claims to know right from wrong.

She pleaded not guilty of the attempted murder of her three children by reason of insanity. According to the story, she will be sent to a mental hospital or be required to have therapy. Disturbingly, she experienced a similar episode in 2005 in New York. She was diagnosed back then as suffering from postpartum psychosis after giving birth.

She sounds dangerous and perhaps not to be trusted alone with children. Although she now is thinking along saner lines, it is amazing what people attribute to the Holy Spirit. First of all, the Holy Spirit is not speaking to anyone today because He already revealed to mankind all that He desired to communicate. He gave everything we need to know that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Probably we cannot find a way to impress upon people sufficiently this truth, but the great need is for all to know that the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, and demons are not speaking to anyone today. The voices that some think they hear are coming from their own minds—perhaps, their subconsciouses. Sometimes, medication or a lack of it can bring about these events, but they are not of God but from ourselves. God should be praised for what He actually does—not blamed for people’s strange and anti-Biblical behavior.

Optimism & Reality

As the new year begins, I’m all for optimism—and always have been. When Scott McKenzie recorded John Phillips’ (of the Mamas and the Papas) song about wearing flowers in your hair when going to San Francisco, I was all for it. There was going to be peace and love in San Francisco with gentle people wearing flowers in their hair. What could be better? But I was newly married, had a job, and was trying to graduate from college. So I didn’t make it, but the idealism was attractive.

All across the nation,
such a strange vibration.
People in motion.
There’s a whole generation
with a new explanation.
People in motion, people in motion.

Unfortunately, the ideal seldom lives up to the expectations people have in it. Not only was there not much of a “new” explanation—the explanation that was offered was shallow and ineffective. Just a few months later, the Bee Gees released a response to “San Francisco” which was titled, “Massachusetts.” The lyrics include the following:

Feel I’m goin’ back to Massachusetts,
Something’s telling me I must go home.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
The day I left her standing on her own.

Tried to hitch a ride to San Francisco,
Gotta do the things I wanna do.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
They brought me back to see my way with you.

Talk about the life in Massachusetts,
Speak about the people I have seen,
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
And Massachusetts is one place I have seen.

The lights going out referred to the fact that everyone was leaving for San Francisco and the idealism it represented, but it was time to return to reality. [Incidentally, this song was their first number one hit in Australia and the United Kingdom (although only hitting number 11 in America). According to Wikipedia, it became one of the best-selling singles of all time, selling more than 5 million copies worldwide (it was also number one in Canada, Japan, and South Africa).]

That same year (1967) the Youngbloods released “Get Together,” but it rose no higher than #67 on Billboard’s Hot 100. Two years later, it was re-released and managed to get in the Top Five. The opening verse gains one’s attention.

Love is but a song we sing;
fear’s the way we die.
You can make the mountains ring,
or make the angels cry.

Though the bird is on the wing,
and you may not know why.

Come on people now;
smile on your brother;
Everybody get together
and try to love one another right now.

Now there’s a Biblical concept in a popular song. Jesus called it the second greatest commandment. Part of the second verse is also remarkable. It refers to the time “when the one that left us here returns for us at last,” and adds, “We are but a moment’s sunlight fading in the grass,” which is reminiscent of 1 Peter 1:24-25 and James 4:1. Once again, the optimism is appealing, and if everyone would just follow the advice of the song, the world would be a marvelous place. The reality is, however, that many are not interested in love, peace, or unity—as valuable as they are.

The movie, Good Morning, Viet Nam (released in January, 1988), starring Robin Williams, revitalized the song, “What a Wonderful World,” by Louis Armstrong, which was originally released in 1967. It never made it to the Hot 100, but in the United Kingdom it reached the top of the pop chart. When the movie came out, the song this time went up the Billboard chart to # 32. Written by Bob Thiele and George David Weiss, it’s a simple song containing a simple truth.

I see trees of green, red roses, too.
I see them bloom, for me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue, and clouds of white,
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky,
Are also on the faces of people going by.
I see friends shaking hands, sayin’, “How do you do?”
They’re really sayin’, “I love you.”

I hear babies cryin’. I watch them grow.
They’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know,
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.

Yes, I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.

However, in the movie they played the song while showing evidence of the war. One might see, intermingled with scenes of happiness children experiencing fear or bombs being dropped. The viewer might be surprised and even offended by this juxtaposition, but what is being mixed together is optimism and reality.

The kind of world good-hearted people want is the one described in the song—peace and good will towards others. Too often the world we get is the one at war. It may be that from “a distance you look like my friend”; the problem is that we see too many close-ups. There are at least three worlds. There is the world the way that God wants it to be when He created it perfectly. Second is the world the way most people would like it to be. Third is the world the way some have made it to be.

Countries must have a strong military because a few are never willing to live and let live. Some always have the, “We will conquer you,” mentality—as expressed by Nikita Khrushchev when he said, “We will bury you.” We were doing our best to stay out of World War II when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Did we invent Adolph Hitler? Some choose to be aggressors no matter how they are treated.

Therefore, it was disconcerting to hear a man call in a talk show recently and try to encourage, in effect, being “nicer” to various nations.  He vainly thought if we would just treat the Taliban in a friendlier manner, the two cultures would get along better, and the world would be a better place.  Mark Stein, the guest host, told him (accurately) that if his philosophy were implemented, the world would be strewn with corpses!

The man apparently could not distinguish idealism from realism.  A significant portion of the Muslim world absolutely hates and despises America; it does not matter how friendly anyone is—nor how kind.  They have turned their backs on Jesus’ message of love toward others, and they only desire to kill Christians whenever they get the chance.  America was nothing but kind and hospitable to the two brothers who, apparently, without any qualms whatsoever, bombed the Boston Marathon.  Satan has so perverted and twisted the thinking of some that you could do them a great service on one day, and they would still kill you the next.  They are not unlike what Al Wilson sang about in “The Snake.”  A woman finds a snake gravely injured and nurses him back to health.  When he needed saving, his plea was:

“Take me in, oh, tender woman;
Take me in, for heaven’s sake;
Take me in, oh, tender woman, ” sighed the snake.

When the snake recovered sufficiently, “instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite.”  The conversation after that went thus:

“I saved you,” cried that woman,
“And you’ve bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous,
and now I’m going to die”

“Oh shut up, silly woman.”
said the reptile with a grin,
“You knew [full] well I was a snake
before you took me in.”

[The original word in the song I replaced by the one in brackets—GWS.]  The point of the song is that you should not be surprised that a snake acts consistently with his character.  When people are taught from kindergarten up to hate, period (no matter the object of their hatred), we can scarcely be surprised if they become terrorists.

Prior to the Flood, the world, which God had created, had mostly forgotten Him.  The result was that “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11).  Likewise, the true and living God is not part of Islam; therefore, many of them choose to perform acts of violence in the name of the false god Allah.  No amount of love will stop such extremists—any more than it will White Supremacists (and some still exist) who are taught to hate anyone different from themselves.  One is currently serving a 40-year prison term for hiring someone to kill a judge.

So why did God destroy the world with a Flood?  The answer seems to be that there was no hope of reformation.  Is such a condition possible?  1 Timothy 4:2 speaks of those who speak lies in hypocrisy, which is also difficult for most of us to understand.  How could they do that?  The answer is that they have “their own conscience seared with a hot iron.”  Can not the same thing be done with respect to terrorism?  How can any sane, sentient being explode a bomb to kill or maim healthy individuals who are innocent of any wrongdoing?  A person must sear his conscience, or he would not be able to do it.  It is one thing for the guilty to be judged and made to pay for their crimes, but why kill the blameless?

“But if we just tried to understand them….”  If you could understand insanity, what would that make you?  “If only they were shown love….”  Did God not love those who lived before the Flood?  Did Noah not preach for a hundred years?  Some people are just immovable and implacable, no matter what.  Did Jezebel ever change?  People like her do not just wake up one day and say, “I think I’ll be nice now instead of a wicked witch.”

Mystery writer Agatha Christie believed in what many choose not to—evil.  At least she agreed with the Scriptures on that point; the naive do not.  Many reason, “Because I would not harm others without cause, nobody else would, either.”  That’s one of our problems.  We do not understand that terrorists do not think the way we do.  They have no respect for the lives of non-Muslims; in fact, they don’t have much respect for the lives of other Muslims, either.  They kill each other when they think the situation calls for it.  The fact that they do not value even their own lives—thus volunteering to be suicide bombers, etc.—shows how deeply-seated their hatred is.  Life has no value for them, period.  How can one kill his own daughter and term it an “honor killing” unless he has become perverted by his religion?

God knows that evil exists; for that reason He will exclude it from heaven.   One thing that evil does is grow and multiply, as it did both before and after the Flood (Rom. 1:21-32).  If mankind has learned one thing, it is that wickedness proliferates, given a foothold anywhere.  In heaven, not even a smidgeon will be in evidence.  Those who love and practice evil shall be destroyed in eternal fire.  At that point, all who have been invited to enter in can rightly be optimists.

Does that mean that no one can change here on earth?  No.  Just because some never will does not mean that no one ever will.  Anyone who is a Christian has changed from what he once was.  We have all chosen to sin (Rom. 3:23).  God, however, gave us an opportunity to reverse our initial decision and live righteously instead.

In the history outlined in the Bible we see examples of entire civilizations who refused to repent.  After the Flood, the citizens of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim became wicked, thoroughly saturated by the grievous sin of homosexuality (Gen. 18:20; 19:4-5).  They were destroyed.  God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent, but they chose to continue in their iniquitites and were destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites after Jehovah taught a lesson to Pharaoh on obedience.

Furthermore, all the world kingdoms—Babylon, Me-do-Persia, Greece, and Rome—that were so mighty and thought to be invincible were destroyed.  Why?  God has more power than the devil.  He allows Satan’s kingdoms to stand for a time but destroys them when they refuse to repent.  Most nations become lifted up with pride, depending on their own greatness, but a nation filled with rottenness and corruption is headed for a fall (Pr. 14:34; 16:18).

On the other hand, there was the remarkable repentance of the Assyrians who believed the message of Jonah.  Christianity also changed the world for the better, but Rome did not repent of its sins—just of persecuting Christianity.  Though the empire did not change its ways, many of those in it did, for the gospel was preached into the entire world (Col. 1:6, 23).  In the beginning, the number of Christians grew and multiplied, and thousands are yet being converted, but few nations have become righteous, and if they have, it has not been for a long period of time.

If the history of the world is any indication, whole nations are probably not going to be converted.  The best opportunity we have is still with individuals, bringing them to Christ one by one.  Early Christians were often persecuted and put to death for their convictions, but it did not stop or even hinder much the growth of the church.  As Tertullian observed, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” (Apologeticus, chapter 50).  Since heavy-handed treatment of Christians could not prevail, it was eventually abandoned—then, by and large, embraced.

Individual Christians do not know how many or precisely whose hearts will accept the truth.  We must think evangelistically toward all.  Persecution did not eradicate Christianity, but a failure on our part to act will.  Materialism—a pursuit of things rather than righteousness will cause churches to decline.  An idolization of “stars” who possess no morality will not aid us.  Jesus was the only truly righteous man who ever lived; both the world and God’s own people crucified Him.  He alone is worthy to be a genuine hero to all mankind.

Do we wish this was a perfect world where love prevailed?  Optimistically, yes.  But realistically, it never will be.  So, though we desire peace, we arm ourselves for war.  Are we, then, pessimistic?  No, the world we desire will exist—but not on this planet, which shall be burned up.  We look for the righteous world to come (2 Peter 3).

Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.

A REVIEW OF THE DIPPERS DIPT. (PART 5)

Brethren frequently wonder how denominationalists justify certain religious practices, and the fact is that, today, few bother because the emphasis for many people has shifted from, “What does the Bible teach?” to “What makes me feel good?”  So it is interesting to observe the way some doctrines were once defended.  Dr. Dan Featly published the book under review in 1647, and he represents the best thinking of those of his age (or any age).  Over a period of time, sprinkling infants became an acceptable practice, although it is not authorized (or even mentioned) in the New Testament.  For a thousand years, Roman Catholicism practiced the sprinkling of infants, and they erroneously called it baptism.  When Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII challenged the Catholic Church on many of its doctrines, they were cheered by many.  When the Anabaptists went one step further and challenged the practice of “baptizing” babies, they were booed.

In general, that custom did not have to be defended before this time, but now it did.  Many of the “justifications” are very poor.  The religious world was emotionally tied to the teaching; so practically any defense would make them feel good about what they practiced because most had no desire to change anyway—even if this tradition was not according to the New Testament.  Dr. Featly presented ten arguments to establish his case; none of them are very good.  His eighth and tenth arguments will close out this series of articles.

Children Are Holy

This line of reasoning is confusing and involves contradiction, just as the seventh one did.  The upshot of the argument is that children are holy, and therefore their parents should “baptize” them.  They were born with “original” sin, according to Featly, and must be baptized to have forgiveness, but at the same time they are in the kingdom and holy.  How is such a thing possible?

How did the “doctor” arrive at this conclusion?  He begins by asserting that children are saved before they are sprinkled, which is confusing, since they are ostensibly to be sprinkled to get rid of “original” and all other sins.  He states his position in three ways.

As they who are partakers of the grace both signified and exhibited to us in baptisme, may and ought to receive the sign and sacrament thereof ; this is the basis and foundation upon which S. Peter himself builds, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? (52-53).

For this discussion, his erroneous understanding of Acts 10 will be laid aside.  He thinks that, since Cornelius and the others received a gift of the Holy Spirit, they therefore received the Holy Spirit, period, and were thus saved already when they were later baptized.  A careful study of the text will demonstrate that this idea is not true.  But Featly thinks it is, and he compares it to infants.  The parallel must of necessity be that infants have received the Holy Spirit and must be baptized and not denied the privilege.

But wait a moment?  On what basis has he determined that infants have received the Holy Spirit?  Was it by observation or through the teaching of the Scriptures?  He does not say at this juncture.  While it is true that babies might sound like they are speaking in tongues; no one could make a serious argument out of “baby talk.”  But he insists that they have received God’s grace; how does he know?  So, do infants receive the Holy Spirit first and are then sprinkled as a sign that God has saved them, or are they “baptized” in order to have “original” sin washed away?  Those reading his rationale must be totally confused when he argues the matter both ways.  And if they were filled with the Holy Spirit, when did that occur?  He continues:

If God bestow upon children that which is greater, the inward grace ; why should we deny the latter, the outward element ? (53).

This time, he substitutes God’s “inward grace” for the “Holy Spirit,” but the overall point remains the same.  Again, the question must be asked, “How does Featly know that children have received God’s grace—if it is inward and not observable?  The children of unbelievers evidently do not receive this grace; so how do Christian parents recognize it in their infants?

Notice that no Scripture is cited for the dichotomy he has created.  He has, without any Biblical authority whatsoever divided salvation into an inward grace (discerned by what—a feeling?) and an outward action—“baptism.”  Who told him he could do that?  These are theological assumptions that have no foundation in the Bible.

He continues this line of thinking by asking parents how they can “allow unto children the grace of the remission of sins, and regeneration, and yet deny them the sign and seal thereof, to wit baptisme” (53)?   There he said it again.  Salvation is divided into two parts—the remission of sins, which involves regeneration—and the outward sign or seal of it—baptism.  The same question persists:  “Since baptism is allegedly the outward sign of what has already occurred, exactly when was the babe forgiven of his sins and regenerated?”  (Of course, no such thing occurs in infants; we are merely taking what he says and showing the fallacy of it.)  His final comment parallels these:

But children receive the grace signified and exhibited in baptisme ; for the Apostle teacheth us, they are not unclean but holy ; and therefore have both the remission of sins and sanctification (53).

So, what is he saying?  Up to this point in his paragraph, he seems to have stressed that “baptism” cannot be denied infants because they have the Holy Spirit, God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, and regeneration.  In this last sentence he seems to be advocating that they receive all those things in baptism.  Which is it?

That aside, however, he refers to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:14 about the children being holy.  But Paul is not talking about grace, the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, or regeneration in that text.  Nor is he speaking of infant “baptism” and citing reasons for sprinkling infants.  When the Anabaptists challenged him on the use of this verse, Featly showed that he did understand the context.  He mentions that in the text Paul is trying to persuade a Christian husband not to leave his unbelieving wife and a Christian wife not to leave her unbelieving husband. (53).  The verse says:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

So the situation under discussion concerns a Christian married to a non-Christian.  Apparently, one of the questions the Corinthians asked Paul concerning marriage was, “What if I am married to a non-Christian?  Can I divorce him in order to marry a Christian?”  The answer is, “No—if your mate wants to remain with you, do not seek a divorce” (vv. 12-13).  In what way is the unbeliever sanctified by the wife?

Brad Price, in his commentary on First Corinthians, wrote that the believer sanctifying the unbeliever meant that the Christian has “a positive effect on the unbeliever!” (234).  He adds on the same page that the word sanctified in this instance refers to mixed marriages that “are recognized and accepted by God.”  The word translated “sanctified” “is a perfect tense,” referring to the time “when the couple was married” (234).  Even though one is a Christian and one is not, the two are still married (if they were eligible when they wed), so far as God is concerned.

What is the status of the children?  If the parents were not legitimately married, the child would be illegitimate, but since they are married, their children are legitimate.  A couple not authorized to be married cannot have legitimate children.  Likewise, a couple that is legitimately married cannot give birth to an illegitimate child.  The children are holy.

But none of this has anything to do with “original” sin or the idea of “baptizing” infants.  Featly should not have even cited 1 Corinthians because it has no bearing on his case.  Holy refers to “legitimacy” in this instance—not whether or not children stand guilty of sin before God.  According to Calvin and Featly, children are born with sin that needs to be removed.  They think that sprinkling will make the children holy, but in an en-tirely different sense than what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:14.  Besides, Featly is confused even over that, having argued that children need to be baptized because they have sin and also because they are holy.

All Protestants Agree?

The tenth and final argument made to try to establish infant sprinkling is that it is practiced consistently in Protestant denominations and therefore ought to be accepted by every religious group as valid.

All members of the reformed Protestant Churches in Christendome ought to conform their judgements to the harmony of the Protestant confessions set forth by the consent of all orthodox Churches, and firmly grounded upon deductions at least from holy Scripture, if not evident in texts (55-56).

The conclusion is that the Anabaptists (and any other religious group) should therefore give up their teaching (which Featly calls a heresy), or they should  quit calling themselves “Protestants.”  That would be no problem for members of the Lord’s church; we call ourselves Christians—not Protestants.

Such a threat has no meaning for us; we will lose no sleep over not being included in a manmade classification that is not Biblical in the first place.  We are not Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant.  The gospel, when preached as it was in the New Testament era, produced Christians—nothing more and nothing less.  But Featly includes several quotes in a vain effort to establish “Protestant” unity.

He cites the Helvetian confession, which offered a very sharp viewpoint:  “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that children newly born ought to be baptized…”  So tied to their practice of infant sprinkling are they that they cannot tolerate a different perspective.  They assume that what they grew up believing is right and that anything that challenges it is wrong.  Should we expect better of them?  Yes!  The reason they should be more open-minded is that they grew up learning false Catholic teachings, from which they departed, based on what the Bible taught.  So why are they suddenly so close-minded on this subject?  But notice the contradiction again found in two paragraphs back to back.

First, infants of Christian parents are not to be kept from baptisme, because they are born in sin, and belong to the people of God.

…for, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, of such is the kingdome of God : why therefore should not the seal of the Covenant be given to them ? (56).

Again, Featly does not see the contradiction.  Infants, according to him, are born in sin and need “baptism,” but of such is the kingdom of God.  Therefore, babies are sinful and holy at the same time and must be sprinkled for both reasons.

Featly next quotes from the Bohemian confession, which mentions allowing children to come to Jesus.  The French confession puts it this way:

Although baptisme be a sacrament of faith and repentance, yet in as much as children are reckoned with their parents in the Church of God, we affirm, that infants that are born to holy parents ought to be baptized by Christ’s authority (56).

Once again, nobody seems to be concerned about children born to atheists, Muslims, or Buddhists.  If they die, they must be condemned to eternal fire because of “original” sin.  Apparently, salvation depends on whom one knows.  If one is lucky to be born to Protestant parents (how about Catholic parents?), then salvation is guaranteed; if not, tough luck.

Three more confessions only repeat some of these same erroneous beliefs.  As added “proof” that the Anabaptists are wrong in this view, Featly touts with pride the fact those who teach that children do not need baptism have been persecuted unto death.  The following words are his as he concludes his arguments.

…those Christian states accounted it no light error upon which they laid so heavie a load of punishment; in some places the broachers of this heresie, and practisers of rebaptizing have been punished with beheading, in some with drowning, and in some with burning. There is a law against this sect in the Code of Justinian, written with bloud [sic] rather than ink,

If any man be convicted to re-baptize any of the ministers of the Catholic sect, let him who hath committed this heinous crime, together with him whom he hath seduced to be re-baptized, suffer the stroak of death. 

At Vienna the Anabaptists are tyed together with ropes, and one draweth the other into the river to be drowned… (57).

One familiar with today’s world events is shocked enough to read of Americans being beheaded by Muslim terrorists; how incongruous is it to read that some practiced this barbarous execution in the name of Protestant Christianity.  It just shows how little the “clergy” and others knew of the Word of God to do such a horrific thing—and brag about it.  Where did Jesus command His followers to execute those who failed to follow “orthodox” doctrine?  The worst punishment ever commanded to someone who had departed from the faith was the withdrawal of fellowship.  Did none of these “Christians” notice that killing those who disagreed with certain views was not authorized in the Scriptures?

They even made what they were doing sound almost Biblical.  They considered that a person who taught others that infants did not need to be sprinkled and that those of age needed to be immersed had pulled them into error.  So they had such individuals pull into the water anyone who had followed that teaching that they might both drown.  They thought it was appropriate that, since “they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing,” thus profaning the “holy sacrament,” for them to also be “drowned corporally” (57).  Featly shows not one iota of remorse or regret for the way they treated the Anabaptists, which certainly calls into question his and others’ concept of Christian love.

This tenth argument does not prove the Anabaptists wrong; it only shows the intolerance and lack of compassion they had toward someone opposed to their beliefs.  After observing the ten arguments that are supposed to prove that infant sprinkling ought to be practiced, all we know is that very few Scriptures were used—and then not properly (as in the three verses that were supposed to prove the apostles “baptized” infants).

Featly tried to make logical arguments, but he did not take the time to prove from the Scriptures his assertions.  He relied on the fact that, since infant sprinkling had been done for centuries, the practice was therefore valid.  He did not establish the claim from the Bible, and one source admitted that no one knew the beginning of it.   Baptism remains only for those who first have faith.

A REVIEW OF THE DIPPERS DIPT. (PART 4)

Circumcision and Baptism

Dr. D. Featly, in trying to defend infant sprinkling in 1647 made ten arguments in a section of his book, which he titled, “Children’s Baptism Justified.”  Three of these have already been examined and been shown to be wanting.  The fourth argument is a repetition of the one he made earlier at Southwark when he attempted to prove that circumcision in the Old Testament justifies infant sprinkling in the New.  He wrote that “the children of Christians are as capable of baptism as the children of the Jews were of circumcision” (47).

The problem with what Featly advocates here is that the two are not parallel in every respect; he is using a superficial reading of the text to try to support a case that he actually does not have.  What is Paul’s purpose in writing Colossians 2:11-12?  The apostle begins earlier in the text by declaring that in the Father and in Christ “are hidden all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).  Evidently some were teaching otherwise because Paul warns them not to be deceived by “persuasive words” (v. 4).  They had received Christ properly and needed to continue in Him, to walk in His ways, and to be established in the faith (vv. 6-7).

Then he warns them again not to let anyone cheat them “through philosophy and empty deceit,” according to things that are not according to Christ (v. 8).  Every Christian is complete in Jesus (v. 10).  Some, however, had either already said or might say in the future that the Christian was not circumcised as the Jews were.  Paul’s answer is that the Christian has been circumcised.  So there is a comparison, but it is not one of comparing Christian children to Israelite children.  The purpose is to show that in Christ all are complete.  “But Christians aren’t circumcised; so they don’t have what the Jews had.”  Paul affirms that, in a sense, we do have circumcision; it occurs when we are baptized and our sins are removed.

Was Paul arguing that baptism is identical with circumcision in content, form, or applicability?  No.  His only point of comparison is what he defines in verse 11: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.”  Notice that Paul made neither the argument nor the application that Featly did.  In fact, there are glaring points concerning the two actions that are obviously not identical.

First, only Jewish males were circumcised, but both genders are baptized.  Second, the Jews performed physical circumcision eight days after physical birth.  God performs spiritual circumcision at the very moment of spiritual birth—putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.  Third, the baby did not give his consent to be circumcised nor even yet believed (by Featly’s own admission), but for baptism to be valid, the individual being baptized must have “faith in the working of God” (v. 12).  The only similarity between circumcision and baptism is that they both remove something—circum-cision removes a piece of flesh; baptism removes all sins.  Only those who have faith in the working of God can receive the spiritual circumcision.  Babies and infants do not have that ability.

The Anabaptists did not point these things out; instead they said (correctly) that in the Old Testament there was a command to circumcise children, but there is no command to baptize children.  Featly responded with three replies.  He said that there was no command to baptize women, either, which is foolish.  The gospel was commanded to be preached to everyone (Mark 16:15-16).  Furthermore, we have examples of women being baptized, such as Lydia (Acts 16:15).  We have no record of even one child being baptized.  Featly then argues that there is no command “for re-baptizing any that were baptized in their infancy, which the Anabaptists practice…” (48).

One cannot escape the hilarity of such a claim.  Since neither Jesus nor the apostles baptized infants, how could there be a command to re-baptize them?  In the second place, sprinkling is not baptism; so they were never baptized at all.  The Greek verb, baptizo, means “to dip, to plunge, to immerse,” as any Greek lexicon can verify.  No one who was sprinkled as an infant has ever been baptized, period.  But even if (by some incredibly lengthy stretch of the imagination), sprinkling did count as baptism, being re-baptized would remain authorized.  Some men had been immersed in Acts 19.  They were taught John’s baptism; when they learned about Christ fully, Paul made sure they were baptized again.  If one’s initial baptism is not valid (such as not having had faith), then one is authorized to be baptized again.  Featly’s first response to the Anabaptists fails twice over.

His second response seems to be that the practice of admitting people to the “church” of the Old Testament is still in force, though the form of it has changed.  Now, he says, it is through baptism instead of circumcision; “nothing can be alleaged [sic] why children should then be by circumcision admitted to the Church, and not now as well by baptisme” [sic] (48).  He continually repeats himself, and this is an assertion; this article previously showed in what ways baptism and circumcision are alike and dissimilar.

His third response covers no new ground, either.  He repeats that it would be blasphemous to deny the children of Christian parents entrance into the kingdom, but the assumption is that they are outside the kingdom to begin with and in need of salvation.

The fifth argument simply reverts to Genesis 17:7 once again, along with Romans 4:13.  Nothing is said here that was not already included in the Southwark conversation.  For those who remember phonograph records, he is like the needle stuck in one of the grooves—just endlessly looping himself.

The Cloud and the Sea

Argument #6 finally breaks new ground, and it turns out to be strange turf.  Featly cites 1 Corinthians 10: 1, but he uses verse 2 as well to make his case:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

He does not, however, use these verses the way that Paul did.  The apostle also referred to the spiritual food  (manna) that God’s people ate in the wilderness and the water that flowed from the spiritual Rock, which was Christ (1 Cor. 10:3-4).  Paul’s main idea is that, even though Israel possessed all of these advantages, they died in the wilderness (v. 5).  He exhorts Christians not to fall as our spiritual predecessors did through lust, idolatry, sexual immorality, or tempting Christ (1 Cor. 10:6-11).

Featly, however, would have his readers think that Paul is making an argument for infant baptism, which ignores the context entirely.  He advocates that children, under the Law, were baptized typically (as a type of what was to come).  If, then, they were baptized as a type, then they should be baptized for real under the gospel.

But children were typically baptized under the law, for they with their fathers were under the cloud, and passed through the red sea ; and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigures our washing in baptisme… (50).

His conclusion, then, is that “children are capable of true and reall [sic] baptisme under the Gospel” (50).  The only problem is that Paul did not make this application.  Baptism was not a command that God ever gave under the Law of Moses—for children or adults.  If Featly could have cited such a command, he would have proudly displayed it instead of omitting any reference to it altogether.  Paul used this event to show that on one occasion all of Israel was baptized, but it was not in response to any command that God gave to His people.  In fact, there is no reason to suspect that they had any inkling that it would serve as a type.

Someone might wonder, “But still, since infants were present, doesn’t it prove that infants today should be baptized?”  Is Paul focusing on infants at all in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4?  No.  He is talking about Israel as a nation, and children were part of the covenant (whereas in Christianity they do not need to be redeemed).  What Featly could never understand is that circumcision and baptism were for two different purposes.

Circumcision was not practiced in order for anyone to receive forgiveness of sins; baptism is designed for that purpose.  Peter taught on the Day of Pentecost that the Jews present should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).  He later taught that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21)—not by itself, of course, but for the one who believes and has repented.  Baptism, then, has to do with sins being washed away and removed.  Circumcision had no such purpose.  It did not remove anyone’s sins.  Not once in all the Bible is there any hint of such a notion.  Its function was to make them part of God’s covenant.

Someone might ask, “Then why does Paul compare the two in Colossians 2:11-12?”  Again, his purpose was to show that in some respects we have things in common with our Israelite forerunners.  Circumcision and baptism do share one element in common—the result of the action.  Already mentioned were the type and the fulfilment.  In circumcision a piece of flesh is removed.  In baptism, sins are removed.  The result of circumcision was that such an individual, by that act, was made a part of a nation which enjoyed a special relationship with God.  The result of baptism is that the one who believed and was baptized was added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47), thus giving him access to special privileges (1 Peter 2:5, 9).

However, despite this feature both share in common, baptism and circumcision are still two separate acts with two separate purposes, associated with two separate covenants.  To try to justify infant sprinkling by citing the crossing of the Red Sea involves a violent twisting of the Scriptures for a sectarian purpose.

Contradiction

The seventh argument contradicts one made earlier, which shall shortly be evident.  In logical form, the syllogism used is:

All they who belong to Christ and his kingdome ought to be received into the Church by baptisme.

But children belong to Christ and his kingdome, as Christ himself teacheth us, Mark 10. 14 and Luke 18. 16.

Ergo, children ought to be admitted into the Church by baptisme (51).

He quotes the verses where Jesus said that children should be allowed to come to Him and He took them in His arms and blessed them.

The Anabaptists rightly called attention to the fact that Jesus blessed the children (which included infants—Luke 18:15-17), He did not sprinkle them.  Featly could not help but admit that fact, but then supposed that Jesus had His disciples sprinkle them, as per John 4:1-2.  In other words, Jesus didn’t do the “baptizing,” but His disciples did.  It would be hard to argue with the principle, but since He had already taken them up in His arms—since He was that personally involved—why not just sprinkle some water on them at the same time?  The problem for D. Featly is that nothing is mentioned at all about the infants being sprinkled—either by Jesus or His disciples.  It is only his imagination that makes every situation into one of “baptizing” children.

But he has a worse problem—and that is one of contradiction.  Logically, A cannot equal not A.  It cannot both have a property and yet lack it at the same time.  The number 2 has certain properties.  It is an even number, a prime number, and it cannot ever be an odd number.  It cannot be 2 and not 2 at the same time (with the same definition).  So, consider this last syllogism.  Children belong to Christ and His kingdom; so they must be admitted into the church by baptism.  But this statement contradicts Featly’s earlier position, which is that children are lost.

Remember when he wrote that children needed the remedy for the disease of original sin which is in children, as well as adults?  He stated that all had sinned in Adam and were by nature the children of wrath (22).  So children belong to Christ and His kingdom, but they also are full of sin.  Both of these cannot be true.  Either they are so evil that they must be baptized for forgiveness or they are so pure they are part of the king-dom and cannot be denied baptism.  They cannot be full of unforgiven sin and also in the kingdom.

Or does Featly mean to claim that the kingdom con-sists of those plagued by “original sin,” who are children of wrath?  He is wrong on both counts.  They have no original sin or sins of their own to be removed by baptism.  On the other hand, purity needs no forgiveness.

Children cannot be vile and not vile at the same time.  Children cannot be pure (belong to Christ and His kingdom) and not pure simultaneously.  Featly has a genuine problem here; he has contradicted himself, which should be obvious to all who read his opinions.

Apostolic Tradition

Arguments 8 and 10 will conclude this series next week.  Argument #9 is a reprisal of the faulty notion that baptizing children began with the apostles.  This is related to the third argument (46).  Here Featly asserts that all apostolic traditions ought to be revered and retained in the church.  Among other verses he cites 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”  Needless to say, everyone ought to agree wholeheartedly with this principle.

The second part of his syllogism states simply: “But the Baptisme of children is an Apostolicall tradition truly so called” (54).  He therefore concludes that it ought to be continued today.  One wonders, when someone makes such a case, if he does not notice that he offered no proof for the second proposition.  Whereas he listed Scriptures for the first claim, he gave not even one for the second.  There is a reason for that—none exist.  The Anabaptists reminded Featly of that fact.

His reply involved citing Augustine (A.D. 354-430), Prosper (390-455), and Jerome (347-420) as authorities who describe the custom of baptizing infants.  Also mentioned as a proponent of infant baptism is Cyprian (200-258) who advocated that it be done before the eighth day (54). Then he refers to an unauthorized council of men who really wanted to enforce the practice; they decreed that a parent who would deny baptism “as soon as” a child comes out of womb—well,  “let him be accursed”!  Origen (185-254) said the church received the tradition of baptism of infants because of Psalm 51:5.  Augustine said it was “the custom of our Mother the Church.”  He also affirmed that the practice preceded any church council dictum.  Interestingly, he added that “no man can tell when it began” (55).  We know when it did not begin—in the New Testament.  For that reason not a single one of these “fathers” listed even one Scripture to authorize infant “baptism.”

Featly thinks that, since no one can find the origin of the practice, it must have been started by the apostles.  How silly is that?  Christians suffered several waves of persecution during the first three centuries.  Who knows when a great many departures from the faith took place?  But unless this or any other practice can be found implicitly or explicitly in the New Testament, we cannot engage in it or claim apostolic authority or tradition for it.  D. Featly stands defeated once again.

A REVIEW OF THE DIPPERS DIPT. (PART 3)

1. Featly, D.D., thought he had proven his case for infant baptism when he published his reasoning in 1647, but most of what he wrote consists of a collection of assumptions. For example, he argued:

1. Where the disease is, there ought the remedy to be applied. But the disease, to wit, original sin, is in children, as well as men. For, all have sinned in Adam, Rom. 5.12, and are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. Ergo, the remedy, which is Baptisme, ought to be applied to Children as well as Men (22).

First of all, he assumes that the doctrine of Original Sin is true, though those words never appear in the Scriptures.  Second, he assumes that Romans 5:12 says that all of us sinned in Adam when what it really says is that “through one man sin entered the world.”  We do not experience separation from God because of what Adam did; “death spread to all men, because all men sinned.”  The passage is not dealing with infants or infant “baptism,” and it certainly does not hold anyone responsible for what Adam did.  Everyone stands in need of salvation because of his own sins.  Featly and other Calvinists read a great deal into certain verses that is simply not there.

Third, he pulls one phrase out of Ephesians 2:3 without noticing the context.  Every Bible student ought to consider the entire context of verses 1-3:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, just as the others.

A student of the Word would first of all notice that nothing whatsoever is said about babies in this passage.  A second important observation is that the evil described is chosen by those who participate in it.  Children do not enter the world dead in trespasses.  They do not walk after the course of this world, and they do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.  No one could possibly think that Paul is describing infants.

But what about the phrase, by nature the children of wrath?  Do these words mean that children are born that way?  Not even all Calvinists believe that.  Albert Barnes, noted Presbyterian commentator, wrote:  “So far as this text is concerned, this might have been true at their very birth; but it does not directly and certainly prove that” (12:1:39).  As a true Calvinist, however, he adds: “It proves that at no time before their conversion were they the children of God.”  But they were—until they sinned.  The Calvinist never considers that children are born free from sin; they cannot get away from the erroneous teaching that babies are born in a depraved state, tainted by “original sin.”

The word nature actually could refer to something obtained through birth.  Galatians 2:15 mentions that some were Jews by nature.  The olive tree is wild by nature (Rom. 11:24).  [Incidentally, homosexuals do that which is against nature (Rom. 1:26).  So, if nature does mean that which is from birth, then they were born heterosexual and became homosexual via some other means.  In other words, homosexuals were not born that way but rather the exact opposite.]

However, by nature can also refer to something accomplished through training or habit.  Gentiles sometimes did by nature the things in the law (which also proves they weren’t born depraved).  How could unregenerated Gentile pagans do by their depraved nature the good things that were in the Law of Moses.  They could not—if born with an evil nature.

Sometimes the Greek word translated “nature” refers to something that is by definition—by its very nature.  Idols are by their very nature not actually gods (Gal. 4:8).  On the other hand, Christians can be partakers of the Divine nature.  The word nature obviously can have various definitions.  But for Calvinists it can only have one meaning—the one that fits their theology.  Once again, adults need to become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:14).  The reason is that children are not born depraved but are innocent.  They must be taught to be corrupt.  For that reason Paul advises a selfish group of brethren: “In malice be babes, but in understanding be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20).  Children are not born malicious; they have to be taught such attitudes.

Featly’s second argument related to this point is:

Those who are comprised within the Covenant of grace, ought to be admitted in the Church by Baptisme. For to them appertaine both the promises of the New Testament and the seale thereof, which is Baptisme. But the children of the faithfull are comprised within the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant betweene me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting Covenant. Ergo, Children ought to be admitted to Baptisme (22).

As pointed out in previous articles, quoting a covenant made with Abraham in the Old Testament cannot serve as proof that children in the New Testament should be baptized.  Did any apostle teach or even intimate that the two covenants are parallel in that regard?  If they had, Featly would have cited it, but all he can do is return to the covenant God made with Abraham—not us.  Furthermore, an infant cannot comprehend even one blessing that comes to Christians—not even the forgiveness of sins.  Featly has no case.

The third related point begins with: “No means of salvation ought to be denied the Children of the Faithfull, whereof they are capable” (22).  Again, does not this imply that the children of the unfaithful are lost?  Does Featly care anything at all about them?  But he continues in his assumption that children are lost; everything hinges upon that, but he cannot prove children are born depraved, lost, or worthy of condemnation.  Children are, in fact, safe.

He says that the children of Jews did not understand circumcision, but it benefitted them anyway, which is true, but the situation for Christians is not the same as it was for Hebrew children.  They were made part of the covenant and then taught.  No one becomes a Christian unless he is first taught (Jer. 31:31-34).  Again, Featly’s doctrine is built on false assumptions which are just repeated ad infinitum—without proof.

Featly’s fourth point introduces new material that is both irrelevant and erroneous.  He totally misunderstands what happened at the house of Cornelius.

All those who receive the things signified by baptisme, ought to receive the outward figure. It is the argument of Saint Peter, Acts 10.47.  Can we forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as wee?

But the children of the faithfull receive the thing signified by baptisme ; to wit, regeneration and remission of sins. Ergo, they ought to receive the signe ; to wit, the baptisme of water.

1. Featly does not understand why the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and those with him. It was to prove that God accepted Gentiles (Acts 11).  Peter did not say they were saved; he said they had received the Holy Spirit as well as the apostles had.  They had the same gift the apostles had—speaking in tongues.  Nowhere does he indicate that they were saved—in fact, they needed to be baptized in order to be saved.  Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that baptism in water is just an outward sign.  Apparently, Featly thinks that everyone agrees with his unwarranted assumptions.

Cornelius’ receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was not a sign that he had been regenerated or that his sins had been forgiven.  Generally speaking, it would have meant that, but in this instance it was to prove their acceptability to the Jews, who were still prejudiced against the Gentiles.  This was the only occasion in all the New Testament in which anyone received a gift of the Spirit before baptism.

Does Featly think that the children of Christian parents are saved already and that baptism is just a sign of it?  It would appear so, since he calls it an “outward figure.”  When, then, was the infant actually saved—prior to birth, at birth, sometime after birth but before being sprinkled?  The answer would be interesting.

Featly continues to remind his readers that Christ told little children to come to him.  Yes, but even that is an expression of free will on the part of the children.  Infants cannot make that decision; so infant sprinkling is not the equivalent of what Jesus taught on this subject.

But this last point really takes the cake.  He says that unless “the Anabaptists will grant that children are regenerated, and receive remission of sins, they must needs hold that all children are damned, which is a most uncharitable and damnable assertion.” (22).  Oh, so saying that all children are damned is uncharitable, but concluding that all children born to those who are not faithful Christians are damned is much more positive?  Who cares about all the children born in Asia and Africa?  We can write them off, so long as the European children are safe!

How ironic is that?  They condemn all children to being sinful and then say those who don’t grant them salvation through sprinkling are monstrous.  Hey!   We aren’t the ones who pronounced them lost to start with.

Objection

Before closing this addendum to the discussion at Southwark, Featly decides to deal with an objection of the Anabaptists, who cited Matthew 28:18-20 as something that could not be done by infants.  In other words, “children ought not to be baptized before they can heare and understand the Gospel preached to them” 22).  So how does Featly respond?

His first point is that preaching does not have to go before baptism; the order is not important.  As proof, he cites Mark 1:15, in which John says, “Repent, and believe in the gospel.”  [Actually, he gave the Scripture reference incorrectly as Mark 1:25 (23).]  Just because repent was placed before believe does not mean that this is always the order that should be followed.  What he fails to realize is John was preaching to Jews who already believed in God.  They had not been following their own law that well; they needed to repent of their sins under that system.  But then they needed to believe in the gospel—something new.

This is far different than addressing those who do not already believe in the one true and living God.  Such individuals need to first believe in God (and Jesus as His Son) and then repent of their sins.  It was only to Jews that John first said to repent; in all the sermons of Acts belief comes first.

In fact, Featly admits this truth.  He writes that “first men believe, and afterward are admitted to Baptisme,” but he hastens to add that, after the parents are converted, their children being comprised within the Covenant are admitted to Baptisme,” retreating to his usual argument regarding circumcision.  Oddly enough, he admits that they must be “baptized” before they are taught because “they have neither the use of reason to apprehend the Gospel preached unto them, nor use of their tongue to profess their faith…” (23).  He is correct, but these facts do not bother him.  He rests his entire theology on a parallel with circumcision that does not exist.

Additional Arguments

This completes the substance of the arguments Featly made in the Southwark discussion.  In a later section of the book, he spends nearly 30 pages making nine arguments and refuting objections to them.  His first argument is that Christ’s command to baptize extended to all nations (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 [he erroneously typed Mark 15:16]).  Children are a large part of any nation; therefore, they should be baptized as well as men.  The usual objection of a lack of understanding is raised again.  His response was that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus instructed the apostles to make disciples, baptizing them first and teaching them afterward (44).  To make a disciple, however, one must be able to think, reason, and obey.  Then they are baptized and taught further.  Jesus is not even remotely hinting that infants should be sprinkled first (without any understanding) and then taught.

Featly says he does not want to take as rigid a view as St. Augustine did—namely, that children dying unbaptized are necessarily damned (45).  But, wait.  If a person truly thinks that children are guilty of any sin (original or otherwise) and that they must be baptized for the purpose of forgiveness, then why would they not be damned, if they died before that occurred?  Featly thinks that God might save them anyway, if they are children of faithful parents.  He reasons: “God is not tyed to his own Ordinance” (45).  Really?  Many of us would call such a practice dishonest.  God did not make an exception for David when he sinned but rather punished him.  God did not make an exception for Uzzah, though it looks as though he tried to keep the ark from falling from honest motives.  When God gives His word, He abides by it.  He cannot alter it or make exceptions for it.

The Apostles Baptized Children (?)

Featly’s second argument is simply a rehash of the one from Psalm 51:5.  But the third one makes a new claim.  “But the Apostles baptized children, for they baptized whole families, whereof children are a known part” (46).  If this were true, it would absolutely settle the matter.  After all, if the apostles baptized infants, it would not really matter why—whether they were born with original sin or not.  If the apostles did so, the practice would be authorized.  But what is the evidence for it?  Three verses are cited:  Acts 16:15, 33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16.  Remember the verse cannot just mention a household; according to Featly’s own criterion, children must be a known part of the household.

Acts 16:15 concerns Lydia: “she and household were baptized.”  The text does not say she had a husband, let alone any children.  Her household may have consisted of a few workers or servants.  We cannot assume she had children and then say, “See, her children were baptized.”  None are mentioned.

Acts 16:33 concerns the Philippian jailer.  All his family were baptized.  Great!  How many were in his family?  The text does not say.  What were their ages?  The verse does not say.  Were there any infants?  No indication is given that there were.  His children could have been 17, 15, 13, 12, and 10.  Maybe there were only two—16 and 14.  We cannot assume what we do not know.  Featly has not proven his assertion.

In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul mentions briefly, “Yes I al-so baptized the household of Stephanus.”  Did he mention a wife or any children?  Did he describe the color of hair or the ages of anyone?  No.  In none of these three examples do we have any evidence of young children or infants.

Featly’s response to these observations, which were made by the Anabaptists, also, is as weak as dirty dishwater.  Although the burden of proof is upon him to show there were children, all he can do is say that if all three households lacked infants, Paul would have said so.  How sad!  D. Featly is utterly defeated in his efforts to prove infant “baptism.”

A REVIEW OF THE DIPPERS DIPT. (PART 2)

Daniel Featly, D.D., published in 1647 the book under review.  The historical background is helpful in understanding the situation out of which this discussion grew, but the most important thing about it concerns the arguments that were made in trying to justify the baptism of infants, which both Catholics and Protes-tants practiced.  The previous article began to examine the first argument offered, which arose out of a discussion between Featly and a group of Anabaptists in Southwark, in the central district of London, England.

The Doctor of Divinity asserted that infant baptism in the New Covenant takes the place of circumcision in the Old.  While it is true that Paul compares baptism to circumcision, his point is that baptism removes sins (rather than flesh) for those who have faith in the working of God—which infants do not possess (which Featly even admits).  No Scripture compares infant sprinkling with circumcision; this is merely an attempt to justify a practice that existed rather than forming this conclusion from the teaching of the Scriptures.  Neither do the Scriptures call baptism “a seale of the righteousnesse of faith,” which Featly also alleged.

Featly’s book contains several other documents besides the 25-page disputation at Southwark.  A later document concerning the Anabaptists is titled: “A particular confutation of six of their erroneous tenets,” found on pages 36-176 of the book.  Since Featly again addresses the subject of infant baptism as he thinks it relates to circumcision, it shall be examined here before moving on to a different argument.

The author apparently thinks that the absence of a command to baptize infants is irrelevant because “there is no expresse and particular commandment, either for the baptizing of women, or administering the Lord’s Supper to them…” (48).  This is a strange approach, to say the least.  Does he actually think that women are not included in the Great Commission?

For example, Mark records Jesus as commanding, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).  Does Featly think that Jesus intended to exclude women in this saying?  Paul affirms that the gospel had been preached “to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23).  Jesus continued by saying, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16).  Although he is used, virtually all people recognize that it stands for male or female.  Featly might argue (rather lamely), “Well, if it includes women, it can include infants.”  It could—if they could understand the message and believe.  But they cannot; so he has not proven his case.  Besides, we know that women were baptized (Lydia, for example) and that ladies were members of the church (cf. Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 11; Phil. 4:2, et al.).  Yet no Scripture describes the baptism of an infant.

Finally, Featly declares that: 1) if infants could not be baptized, they would be worse off than children under the Law of Moses; 2) circumcision admitted them to the congregation of God’s people; 3) it would be blasphemous to think that the children of Christian parents should be excluded from the privileges of the gospel system (48).  Featly (as did Calvin before him) errs in thinking that children are excluded from anything.  Infants are not sinners and have no need of salvation.  They are safe until they understand the concept of sin.

Calvin’s problem was thinking that all who enter the world are born depraved and full of sin.  Therefore, they need infant sprinkling to rid them of that sin they are born with.  But this thinking is wrong and not taught in the Scriptures.  Instead of children coming into the world tainted by someone else’s sins, they are actually pure and sinless.  Calvin’s doctrine (which came primarily from Augustine) blasphemes the Creator Who, according to them, allows babies to enter the world full of sin and enter into eternity condemned to hell unless they were born to Christian parents and sprinkled.

This doctrine is monstrous.  Although the infant mortality rate in our age is relatively low, it was considerably higher during the time in which Featly lived.  If a child died from one of several childhood diseases and he had not been baptized to remove “original sin,” he was lost.  Imagine how many children never made it to ten years of age under normal conditions, let alone at the time of the bubonic plague or the influenza in 1918.  All of those children would be lost eternally before they ever had an opportunity to hear the gospel—according to Calvin’s and Featly’s theology.

Trying to justify infant baptism by appealing to Paul’s comparison of baptism to circumcision falls flat, to say the least.  The circumcision of the flesh under the Law was only for males; the circumcision of one’s sins under Christ is for all who are guilty of sin and have the ability to believe.  That excludes infants.  The assumptions of Featly and others are just that—assumptions.  Appealing to Augustine does no good, either.  No Scripture upholds that position.

Argument 2:  John 3:5

Returning to the discussion at Southwark, we find that the second argument Featly offers is from John 3:5, in which Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”  What does this verse have to do with baptizing infants?  Featly tries to make a connection.  He writes:

If none can enter into the kingdom of God, but those that are borne of Water and the Spirit, that is, those that are baptized with Water, and regenerated by the Spirit ; then is there a necessity of baptizing of Children, or else they cannot enter into the Kingdome of God (that is, ordinarily) for we must not tie God to outward meanes. But the former is true. Ergo, the latter (11).

What a strange text to use for proof of infant sprinkling!  Babies have barely been born when, according to the adherents of this doctrine, they must be born again.  Does this claim make sense to anybody?  Why would a newborn babe need to be regenerated?  Who says they are out of the kingdom to begin with?  Jesus said to allow children to come unto Him, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).  In other words, they are already in the kingdom and should not be denied access to Jesus.  When they are older and begin to sin and understand the concept of sin, then they are separated from God and are in need of the blood of Christ and the salvation that comes through Him.

When asked what happens to the children who are not baptized (sprinkled), Featly says that “wee leave them to the mercy of God, conceiving charitably of their salvation, because the children of the faithful are comprised in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7…” (11).  This response does not answer the question.  First, he only deals with the children of the faithful.  What about the children who were born to parents who are not among the faithful?  What about the children who die that are born to Muslims, Hindus, Indians, etc.?  He must condemn them all even though their children have never committed a sin of their own.

But, second, he fudged on the children of denominationalists.  If they were not sprinkled before death, which is absolutely necessary for them to enter into the kingdom, then they must be lost.  But he bids God to be merciful in this case because their parents are faithful.  So if a baby has faithful parents but was not sprinkled, which he says is essential to enter the kingdom, he thinks God should save them anyway.  But if a child born to unbelievers dies, he is automatically consigned to hell.  So, salvation and entrance to the kingdom has nothing to do with one’s own choices; it just depends on who his parents are.  Who can believe it?

The problem Featly has is with Calvinistic doctrine.  Children are not born sinners; they are not responsible for Adam’s or anyone else’s sins.  They have no need of baptism because they have no sin to cleanse; they are also incapable of having faith.  They are in the kingdom already; thus they have no need of a means to let them enter in.

The Anabaptists correctly pointed out that Jesus, in John 3:5, was talking to an adult—not a child.  Featly immediately resorted to an argument previously made.

You might as well and better say, that women are not men ; and doe you thinke that women ought not to be Baptized? This text speaks of children as well as those in riper years, male or female ; for, as the Apostle speaketh, In Christ there is no difference of sex or age (11).

Wait a minute!  Galatians 3:26 says there is no difference regarding Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; where is the verse that says that age makes no difference?

Matthew 19:14

Some use this verse to argue that infants ought to be baptized in order to get into the kingdom; what they miss is that Jesus said, concerning little children, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”  He did not say to let them into the kingdom; an adult must become like them (in other words, as they are) in order to become part of the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, children are fine the way they are; they are in the kingdom and not in need of salvation.  It is only Calvinistic theology that turns them into depraved sinners in need of cleansing.  Was Jesus saying that the kingdom of heaven is composed of depraved sinners (in need of washing)?  Or was He saying that those in the kingdom of heaven must possess the qualities of humility and purity, as seen in little children?  Obviously, it is the latter, for how could those in the kingdom be depraved after being regenerated?  Ergo, Featly as yet has no case.

Argument 3:  Apostolic Example?

.
That Southwark discussion got off onto another topic at this moment, but Featly decided to add to his two previous arguments in “Additions to the former Conference” as an addendum.  He said he had an even more forcible argument, which was the “constant practice of admitting Children to Baptisme, even from the Apostles dayes unto this present” (20).  He is confident that this argument will “convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian.”  Then he talks about the inspiration of the apostles, which is something that any believer agrees with, but the fact that we all know the inspiration of the Scriptures does not make his case for him; he must produce the Scriptures that prove his assertions.

He begins with a syllogism that basically says, if the apostles authorized children to be baptized in the New Testament, then it would be an appropriate thing to do today.  No one can possibly disagree with that.  Anything the apostles taught and authorized (that was intended to be permanent) cannot be challenged.  However, again, where is the Scriptural evidence?  He declares that the case is already proven and cites “the testimony of Origen for the Greeke Church, and S^t Austine for the Latine, and the Ecclesiasticall stories in all ages.”

The reader may be saying to himself, “I didn’t see any Scriptures offered as proof,” and that is correct.  He is relying on those who were not apostles.  Origen lived his adult life in the first half of the third century, and St. Augustine (Featly evidently misspelled his name, since there is no Saint Austine) lived from 354-430.  Neither of these was within 100 years of the writings of the New Testament, and we know that many changes and departures from the teachings of the New Testament were made during that time period.

Psalm 51:5

Featly quotes from a commentary written by Origen on the book of Romans.  He uses Psalm 51:5 to try to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (which, as already shown, would cause every child who died in infancy (or in tender years) to be punished eternally—unless they were fortunate enough to be born of “Christians” who had them sprinkled).  In Psalm 51:5, David wrote: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Several explanations have been offered for this text.  It is David’s mother, however, that seems to be at fault—not David.  It is probably hyperbole, designed to show the kind of world we come into and the pervasive attitude of sin that surrounds us.  David was not born sinful.

The view that Origen expressed was shared by some theologians, but he did not cite a New Testament Scripture that showed the apostles sprinkled children.  He says that it was practiced from Apostolic times, but cites no writer—either in or out of the New Testament—to demonstrate his claim.

Romans 5:12

Finally, Featly gets to the New Testament, and he cites one verse to attempt to prove his case—Romans 5:12.  The verse should be carefully considered:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus spread to all men, because all sinned….

What are the facts of Romans 5:12?

1. Sin entered the world through one man (Adam).

2. Death (both physical and spiritual) came through sin.

3. Death spread to all because all sinned.

What does the verse not say?

1. That infants inherit the sin of Adam.

2. That the guilt of Adam’s sin spread to all men.

3. That a child is lost despite having no sin of his own.

Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that a son does not inherit the guilt of his own father, let alone the sin of Adam.  Many assume that this verse teaches that all are guilty of Original Sin, a phrase that appears nowhere in the entire Bible.  But suppose Romans 5:12 did teach what the Calvinists believe that it does.  Would this not have been the perfect time for Paul to have said, “Don’t you realize, brethren, that this is the reason we baptize infants?”

Not only would it have been an opportune moment for Paul to have referred to that teaching, the fact is that shortly thereafter he does discuss baptism.  Just 12 verses later he writes:

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

First of all, no infants are mentioned here or even insinuated.  Second, the baptism is a burial in water—not sprinkling.  Third, it is clear that this is the new birth that corresponds to what Jesus said in John 3:5, which likewise was for adults.

Nowhere does the New Testament set forth a case for infant baptism.  Proponents of this false doctrine can only try to tie a verse here with a verse there and hope that no one notices the loose connection.

A REVIEW OF THE DIPPERS DIPT. [SIC]

The document under consideration was published in 1647 at a time when the Anabaptists had formed and emerged in Europe as part of what Wikipedia calls “Radical Reformation.”   Actually, they were not any more radical than Martin Luther (1519) or John Calvin (1536); they just did not stop reforming where those leaders did.  Having begun to question the practices of the corrupt Roman Catholic Church, they additionally challenged the practice of sprinkling of infants.  Having found no authority for the practice in the New Testament, they began baptizing adults upon their confession of faith—even those who had once been sprinkled as infants.

Such a teaching did not sit well with those who still taught and practiced infant baptism.  They despised those who taught otherwise and even gave them a name which stuck—Anabaptists.  According to Wikipedia, the Greek ana means “over again,” and baptismos refers to “baptism.”  Thus, their enemies referred to them as Anabaptists because they baptized people over again.  Technically, this designation is false because, since sprinkling is not baptism, they were never baptized in the first place.  In this regard, Wikipedia quotes Balthasar Hubmaier as saying:

I have never taught Anabaptism. …But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ…

It does not take much imagination to understand why those who taught sprinkling became so hostile toward the Anabaptists, since their teaching on baptism implied that those who were sprinkled were not saved, a practice which both Catholics and Protestants, such as Luther and Calvin, taught.  Many who had been sprinkled as infants chose to be immersed, but the leaders had a vested interest in their traditions.

To accept immersion for adults would have been to admit that Protestants had been teaching incorrectly for more than a century and that Catholics had the wrong teaching for a thousand years.  In effect it would have condemned all recent ancestors, including parents—something they could not bring themselves to admit or, perhaps, even think about.  Therefore, most spiritual “leaders” branded the Anabaptists as heretics and persecuted them.

No doctrine should be evaluated in such a manner.  With this approach truth will never be discerned.  The question must always be, “What does the Bible teach?”  Our lives must be evaluated to see if they are in harmony with the Scriptures.  No one has the right to say, “Here is what we believe; now how do we prove that the Bible agrees with us?”  That is what the Catholic Church attempted to do with Martin Luther.  They could not prove that some of his reforms were wrong; they approached it on the basis of, “The Catholic Church knows more than you do.”  Luther believed in letting the Scriptures speak when he challenged the Catholic Church, but he and others were quick to brand as heretics those who disagreed with them—even though an appeal to the Scriptures was made.

The question, therefore, is not, “For how many centuries has sprinkling been practiced?”  The correct approach is to ask, “Was sprinkling used in the first century?”  In other words, “Is it found in the pages of the New Testament?”  If it is, then it would be wrong to criticize it, but if it is not, there can be no valid defense for what God never authorized in the first place.  However, the opponents of the Anabaptists did not use this method.  The book published in 1647 was designed to ridicule and shame Anabaptists.  The best thing it did was to try to make a case from the Scriptures for sprinkling and against immersion.  The reader can judge for himself how successful these efforts were.  Nowadays, few would make such a serious attempt.

The Title

Apparently, in 1647, people liked putting long titles on the cover of a book.  This one reads thus:

The Dippers Dipt.

O R,

The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over

Head and Ears, at a Disputation in Southwark.

These are not all of the contents; the Title page also included several other things discussed in the 256-page book.  The last sentence at the close of the book (before FINIS) says:

So let all the factious and seditious enemies of the Church and state perish : but upon the Head of King Charles let the Crowne flourish. Amen.

The author of this book is Daniel Featly, D.D.  He did not get his wish concerning King Charles, who was executed two years later in 1649.  Oliver Cromwell led England for the next nine years as England became a Commonwealth (briefly).  Upon Cromwell’s death in 1658, England returned to its former system and made king the son of the last monarch to rule; he was called Charles II.

The title of the volume is written as a boast; it implies that all of the arguments of those who taught immersion had been answered thoroughly by Dr. D. Featly, whom some might say is arguing a proposition that is easily D. Feated.  The bias of Featly is seen as early as the second page, where he says:

Now of all the heritiques and Schismatiques the Anabaptists in three regards ought to be most carefully looked unto, and severely punished, if not utterly exterminated and banished out of the Church and Kingdome [their English and grammar varied somewhat from what we use more than 350 years later, GWS].

If that sounds like a harsh statement, it nevertheless expressed the feelings of many spiritual leaders in England, and it explains the religious intolerance of the day.  Because of attitudes like Featly’s and the government of England to back it up, it is no wonder that Puritans and Separatists desired to come to a new country on a new continent (for Europeans) where they could be free to practice religion according to the Bible.

Featly alleges in his foreword that the Papists and the Anabaptists are “most dangerous and pestilent enemies.”  How interesting that Catholicism, which had been shown to be so far afield in so many areas, was considered to be on a par with the Anabaptists.  In other words, the Church of England was not just a little miffed over the insistence upon immersion; they were livid with rage.  It is seldom productive to engage in a study of the Scriptures in such an emotional state.

The Southwark Discussion

After eleven pages of introductory comments, the table of contents is next, followed by 25 pages of the Southwark discussion, which occurred in 1642 between D. Featly and “a company of Anabaptists.”  They came to dispute with him but not merely for contention’s sake.  A Scotsman explained:

We hold that the Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved lawfull by the testimony of Scruiptures, or by Apostolicall tradition ; if you can prove the same either way, we shall willingly submit unto you (1).

Certainly, that is a reasonable request and the proper attitude to display.  Featly could not help but begin with an insult.  Rather than commending them for seeking the truth, he reminded them that Anabaptism…is an heresie long since condemned both by the Greeke and Latine Church…” (1).  This is the ad populum fallacy of argumentation.  Although it is true that Anabaptism had been pronounced a heresy, it is not the case that it had been proven to be one.  Also, it is totally irrelevant, so far as the question is concerned.

Featly then said there were two ways to argue: 1) by Authority, and 2) by Reason (1).  What did he mean in using the phrase by Authority?   Probably, no one today would even come close to guessing what he meant.  He says that anyone wanting to dispute in Divinity “must be able to produce the Scriptures in the Originall Languages.”  What?!  Is this a way of saying, “Only Doctors of Divinity are qualified to discuss the Scriptures”?

He continues: “For no Translation is simply Authenticall, or the undoubted word of God” (1).  Really?  Well, that would include the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, which had been authorized by the Church of England and the one authorized more recently by King James in 1604, published in 1611.  Having been authorized by the King of England and worked on by men holding Doctors of Divinity, one would think Featly would accept some translations as valid.  But, no, he insists that there must be errors in translation and that they must go by what is in the original languages.

What he may not have known (even with a D.D.) was that many of the early manuscripts, such as Vaticanus had not been made available to the King James translators, and Sinaiticus, which had not yet been discovered, show variations.  Furthermore, we have no original texts of either the Old or New Testaments (which actually were infallible).  They are all copies, which record differences.  None of these, however, changes a single Bible teaching.

It is not likely that anyone would be so foolish as to make this argument today, considering the 5,000 manuscripts (including fragments) we possess.  Besides we now have a number of credible translations of God’s Word.  His first point is invalid.

Regarding the use of reason, Featly tells the group they are not qualified to discuss anything with him unless they can use a syllogism.  He judges them to be out of their element (2).  But before he gets around to the topic they came to discuss, he asks them what their view on the Trinity is, his purpose being to show them that they are not qualified to be teachers (3).

Another discussion occurred concerning the visible church, which is interesting but not related primarily to the original question (3-9).  Finally, the reasons for baptizing infants are given; all of these shall receive appropriate consideration.  The first argument that sup-posedly proves infant baptism is the one based on circumcision.  Before looking at what Featly claims, it would be productive to look at what Paul actually wrote.  Sometimes, Paul drew parallels between the old covenant and the new.  Speaking, then, of Christ, here is what Paul said in Colossians 2:11-13:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

Obviously, what Paul is saying is that a person who possesses sins (so that he could be described as dead in his trespasses) has them removed by Jesus when he is baptized.  (Scriptures that would relate to what Paul is saying here would include Romans 6:3-11, Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16, and Revelation 1:5.)  Notice that such a description cannot apply to infants.  A child cannot be loaded with sins of the flesh.  He craves milk but knows nothing of alcohol, drugs, or sexual sins of the flesh, such as lasciviousness, fornication, or adultery.  Furthermore, an infant cannot have faith in the working of God, period, let alone understand the process of salvation pictured here.  None of these facts disturb Featly, who argues thus:

There is as good ground, reason, or warrant for the baptizing of children now, as there was of old for circumcising them. But the children under the Old Testament were to be circumcised, many plain places there are where that was commanded.

Ergo, now by the same warrant they are to be baptized (9).

The reader will see immediately that Featly has not proved his case.  The obvious answer to such an attempt is to say, “Yes, God did command males to be baptized both in the Patriarchal Age, beginning with Abraham, and under the Law of Moses. Failure to do so would result in that individual being cut off from the nation of Israel (Gen. 17:14).  But where is a command with similar force to be found in the New Testament for baptizing infants?  Featly does not provide a Scripture but merely says that what “circumcision was in the old law to the Jewes, that is baptisme now to us, the Sacrament of entrance into the Church” (10).

Only a confused mind could draw such a parallel.  In the first place, Abraham and his seed had a special agreement with God that no other peoples or nations did.  Each male would be circumcised on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3).  At this time, before the babe could understand God’s commands, he was made part of the nation of Israel.  Israel was a nation.  The church is the spiritual body of Christ.  The two are not parallel as regards entrance into the kingdom, and Jeremiah calls attention to a great difference between the two.  As he describes the new covenant, he specifically says it will not be according to the old (Jer. 31:31-32).  How will it be different?

“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34).

Under the Law of Moses, a child could grow up and not know the Lord, depending on his parents.  He was an Israelite but then had to be taught the ways of the Lord.  That does not happen in the New Testament.  One must be taught about God first and then become a Christian.  In the Old, one was part of an earthly, physical kingdom first and then taught; in the New, one is taught first and, when obedience is forthcoming, he is baptized and becomes part of the spiritual kingdom.

Rather than appeal to a Scripture initially, Featly cites “Saint Augustine and all the Divines” (10) as though their authority were greater than that of the New Testament.  When he does produce a Scripture, it is Romans 4:11, which states that Abraham received circumcision as

a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.

Certainly, this verse does not establish his case, since righteousness is imputed to those who believe, which infants have no ability to do—particularly on the eighth day.  Featly acknowledges that the children cannot have actual faith or make a profession of it (10), but then says that baptism remains a seal for them under the covenant of grace.

This conclusion would be fine—if anything in the New Testament implied it was the case, but the Scriptures teach the exact opposite.  Knowledge must come first; it must precede salvation, and in every instance of New Testament conversion this is the pattern.

(To be continued)

IS MARRIAGE OBSOLETE?

“Is Marriage Obsolete?” is a question being asked by many young people in their 20s and 30s.  In fact, Susan Pease Gadoua (a therapist) and Vicki Larson (a journalist) have co-authored a book titled, “The New ‘I Do’: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels,” which was published on September 23, 2014 and discussed in the Orlando Sentinel on October 15^th.  Of course, the answer to the question is: “No.”  God created mankind and knows more about what is best for us than we do.  As long as He lets His world stand, marriage will be as crucial as it was when only two people inhabited the earth.

Statistics

In order to be aware of what many are currently thinking, the claims of the article will be examined.  It begins with an analysis of the 2012 census data by Pew Research Center (all information from the Sentinel appeared on D1).

1960 – 1 in 10 adults (over 25) had never married.

2012 – 1 in 5 adults (over 25) had never married.

This certainly seems to be an indication of a trend.  The second set of figures below may not be as significant since there is only a two-year difference.

2010 – 61% of those never married eventually want to.

2012 – 53% of those never married eventually want to.

Analysis

Gadoua estimates: “I think we’ve reached a tipping point where people are asking whether marriage works for them.”  Have we?  Or are more and more young people being raised without being taught the Bible?  All of the factors cited for changing views certainly indicate there is a lack of respect for God.  Gadoua continues:

Analysts cite such factors as the rising median age for first marriages, an increased acceptance of cohabitation, and difficult economic times for the increase in singles. But our views on marriage are changing too.

Why are young people getting married at a later age?  Are they just being careful?  Or is it that they are committing fornication while living together (or apart)?  The increase in cohabitation explains why marriage is a later development.  Many young people now consider this an intermediate step between dating and marriage.  It may last as little as a few months or as long as several years so that it falls under the definition of what once was referred to as common law marriage.  (In Florida, such marriages no longer exist, unless begun prior to 1968 or the couple moved here from one of three other states.)  Difficult economic times have seldom kept young couples from getting married.

So the key to the situation is not the changing laws toward marriage but the changing attitudes toward fornication.  Many youths have never been taught that living together is not a viable option so far as our Creator is concerned.  Young couples should learn to take seriously Hebrews 13:4:  “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”  This is every bit as valid and binding under the new covenant as, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” was under the Old (Ex. 20:14).  The meaning is simple: Sex outside of marriage is wrong, and God will judge people for committing this sin.  No one is entitled to sexual privileges with anyone but a spouse.  Perhaps some are viewing marriage differently, but they are primarily treating fornication differently.  Oddly enough, the co-author never gives any indication that anything is wrong with fornication.  Yet it occurs in just about every major list of sins (Matt. 15:19; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; 2 Peter 2:18; and Rev. 21:8).

Attitude Toward Sin

More statistics are presented, and then a blasé attitude is expressed toward these matters.

66% of adults (from 18 to 29) say that society is just fine prioritizing other pursuits (than intact marriages and families).

53% of adults (from 30 to 49) say that society is just fine prioritizing other pursuits.

41% of first marriages fail (60% of second marriages).

The writer of the newspaper article, which is titled, “An ‘I Do’ Do-Over for the 21^st Century,” discusses the book after listing those statistics.  She concludes that marriage is embattled and then comments thus:

A pessimist could read the data as proof that the whole enterprise is losing its relevance.

An optimist, though, could read it as an opening for a bold reinvention. After all, if marriage isn’t responsible for improving society, the institution is freed up to accomplish a more individual, deeply-felt goal: namely, improving the lives of the people who enter it.

What kind of gobbledegook is this?  How about if we take the realist’s approach?

1. Marriage is not losing its relevance among those who love God.

2. People have periodically rejected God and His laws in the history of the world—always to their own harm. The time period of Noah comes to mind, as well as the era of Sodom.  Even among God’s people, both the northern and southern kingdoms were taken captive due to the lack of submission to God’s commandments.

3. Marriage does not need to be reinvented; it needs to be respected and honored as the special relationship into which a man and a woman enter.

4. Marriage does not improve society when people enter into it lightly and unadvisedly. Many think that matrimony comes replete with loopholes that will allow a person to leave it if it doesn’t “suit” them.  In other words, they do not view it as a permanent relationship, which is the way God designed it.  When God’s intent is followed, it is good for society.

5. Marriage isn’t “freed up” as though man had invented it and therefore could alter it. It remains God’s institution and is not subject to being re-designed.

6. Those who enter into marriage should always anticipate improving a mate’s life. Most problems result from thinking about what a person can “get out” of the relationship rather than what can be contributed to it.  Selfishness is recipe for failure.

Creative Marriages

The rationale for having a different goal for marriage (than what God designed) is foolish indeed.  The writer of the newspaper  article, Heidi, says that marriage is no longer necessary for childbearing, economic survival, or social acceptance, which is mere flummery.  Yes, people can have children out of wedlock; that’s been established, but unless the mother has a comfortable salary or a wealthy family, there is a matter of having sufficient funds to raise that child.  Has Heidi never looked at the statistics of the chance of success for those born out of wedlock—especially when the father refuses to take responsibility?  As for social accep-tance, it is irrelevant—and it doesn’t pay bills, either.

Heidi writes that couples who marry “can approach their union as a relationship designed to, above all else, foster a happier, healthier life.”  This sentiment is not based on reality; it is simply hifalutin codswollop.

Gadoua, one of the book’s co-authors, shows how lifted up with pride she is when she states:

If people can create a more personalized marriage that works for them, if they can bend some rules and make marriage more flexible, it will continue to be an appealing prospect.

What does more personalized mean?  Marriage is the most personal and intimate relationship there is.  How can it be more so?  Bending rules?  Whose rules?  God’s, who gave marriage to us in the first place?  How does one make marriage more flexible?  Fortunately (or unfortunately), the reader does not have to wonder about ways to individualize their marriage contracts.  According to the authors, people are already doing so by engaging in the following types of marriages, with a brief description of each:

Blended Families – These are not necessarily wrong and can actually be quite stable and nurturing—if they are formed for the proper reasons, such as the death of a spouse or one whose mate committed adultery.   However, some blended families are formed with two individuals who are not authorized to be married again.

Commuter Marriages – The husband and wife may live in separate cities due to career-related opportunities.  These are not inherently wrong; neither might they be ideal—especially if one or both of them are tempted by someone living in the same area and/or working in the same office.

Serial Monogamy – Most of us are familiar with this one, which has been around for decades.  A person, perhaps for a Scriptural reason (or perhaps not), has several wives, although only one at a time (unlike polygamy).  As indicated, however, the cause for the divorce could be for personal reasons, such as a spouse being abused or fearful of an unstable mate.  Many who have one wife at a time do not have the only Scriptural reason Jesus gave for divorce—adultery.  They just move on when they feel like it.

Covenant Marriages – This new term is an interesting one.  It allegedly puts “extra legal hurdles in place to prevent either party from filing for divorce.”  We used to call that being committed to one’s marriage.  Both a husband and a wife enter into matrimony with the idea that they will honor their marriage vows—to forsake all others and be faithful to one’s spouse.  If both parties have that attitude, legal hurdles are not necessary, and if one of them commits adultery, legal hurdles should not be in the way.

Open Marriages – This concept has been around at least since the 70s, and they are not actually marriages at all except in name only.  They allow for “extramarital romps,” meaning that adultery on both sides is accept-able, provided that “passion, freedom, and self-expres-sion are more important…than physical exclusivity.”  Could we have a translation of this eight-syllable, two word phrase?  It means that a husband and wife can cheat on each other at will and as often as they want if passion means more than faithfulness.  In other words, they are more fond of sex than they are each other—in which case why bother with marriage in the first place?  This kind of arrangement is absurd (and geared toward failure), but it certainly could be termed flexible.

More Foolishness

Below are a few more statements that spring from a man (or a woman) who think he or she knows more than God.

Gadoua:  Marriage is a living being that needs to be negotiated and renegotiated all the time.

Eli Finkel (professor of psychology at Northwestern):  Marriage has always been a social construct that has changed through the course of human history, and it continues to evolve.

[We have begun to view marriage as a] voyage of self-discovery. It’s about taking the time and exerting the effort to understand and discover what your partner is trying to achieve in life—and what you’re trying to achieve in life—to help each other find the best versions of yourself. These things are a lot more difficult to achieve than what we’ve traditionally asked of marriage, but they’re exponentially more fulfilling.

Larson (co-author of the book):  The message we so often get is, “Work harder, work harder, work harder.” But some couples are trying something really different, and I think that’s brave. Why not reinvent marriage?”

The reason man does not have the right to reinvent marriage is that he did not invent it in the first place.  If marriage had arisen with human beings, then we could nullify it and say it just doesn’t work, or we could modify and change it into something different from the original specifications, as some are trying to do today.  Over the centuries some evolved marriage into one man having several wives (polygamy).  Today some have attempted to redefine marriage as between two (or more) men or women (throuples).  Besides these efforts, there is a situation in which the members of a particular group  (consisting of 2, 3, or 4 couples) engage in sex solely within said group.  This is called polyfidelity.  The term originated in the Kerista Village commune in San Francisco (where else?) back in the 70s.

All of these situations violate God’s plan for one man and one woman.  They are unequivocally wrong!   God never authorized mankind (whom He created in His own image) to behave in all the perverted ways described above—or in any other ways (not yet thought of) that were not mentioned above.

Finkel’s suggestions about self-discovery and helping each other are nothing new.  These have been advocated as part of marriage enrichment programs and in marital counseling for decades.   Marriages are not suddenly exponentially better because he thought of some of these things, also.  Applying Christian principles to marriage has always improved a relationship.

The Main Problem

One underlying problem stands out in all of the comments from this column on the just-released book of Gadoua and Larson.  The problem is not with marriage as defined by and designed by God.  After 4,000 years of being in effect, if it needed to be improved, God would have added some new ideas when He gave us the new covenant, but He left it untouched because it works when a man and a woman make it work.

The problem is a man’s or a woman’s lust of the flesh, their lust of the eyes (covetousness), and their pride of life (I deserve this).  We have seen romances and situations on television and in the movies where two people “fall in love” even though they are married to others.  Occasionally, a pregnancy will result, but no one ever gets an STD—and in the end everything works out all right—BECAUSE IT’S FICTION!

In real life, friends are embarrassed and don’t know how to act when the sin becomes known.  Children are harmed; mates are devastated, and family members are often asked to choose sides (either explicitly or implicitly).  The root of the problem was selfishness—craving that to which one was not entitled.

It begins in the heart (Matt. 5:27-28)—a heart that chooses to be impure and corrupt.  The idea comes to fruition when one heart finds another one that is equally open to the allurements the devil has to offer.  “I want this for me—no matter what it costs or who it harms,” one resolves to himself.  The fault lies not in marriage or in the stars, but in ourselves.

ATHEISTS, CHIMPS, AND CHUMPS

Let’s begin with a refreshing dose of sanity.  Eric Reinhold wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel (published on October 8, 2014) that was well crafted and spoke the truth.  He was responding to what a rabbi had written earlier when he wrote that “believing in God is less important than acting, in a goodly way toward everyone.”  Reinhold asks first:  “What is good?” and second:  “Who defines what is good?” (A12).

These are excellent questions to ask any time morality is being discussed.  If the highest authority is men, then opposing views will be considered equally valid, whereas if morality is defined by God, then there are objective definitions of good and evil.  The problem with man being the only authority was illustrated by Reinhold in the following way:

An atheist helping a woman get an abortion through a Planned Parenthood clinic might describe their [sic] actions as compassionate and “good,” while a Christian would call that accessory to murder.

Refusal to acknowledge the existence of God and His morality is the reason people are confused about what to think or believe.  Reinhold makes it clear that right and wrong cannot be determined by the Supreme Court, the President, Congress, a majority vote, or any individual.  Only God can declare what is morally right and morally wrong.

Returning to the claim of the rabbi that doing good is more important than believing in God, Reinhold points out that, while doing good is important, the Bible teaches that it will not get a person into heaven, which is accurate.  No proof of this claim was published, but that does not mean his original letter lacked a passage of Scripture.  Newspapers are loathe these days to print many Bible verses—unless they think one favors their viewpoint.  Reinhold might have quoted Jesus:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt. 7:21-23).

Not only will doing good in general not save anyone—neither will doing religious works in God’s name!  One must know God and obey Him in all things.  Actions are not enough.  In other words, Jews are not saved by their good works; neither are atheists, Buddhists, or denominationalists.  A person must know the truth and abide in it (John 8:31-32).

Many people do good for reasons other than believing in God.  Some just have a natural inclination to help other people.  Others must work at it.  Undoubtedly, there are atheists and those not walking according to the truth who are practicing good deeds towards others on a daily basis.  While these are helpful to society, it will not compensate for knowing God or obeying the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8).  Does this mean that Christians hold others in contempt?  Certainly not!  As Reinhold wrote:

Yes, everyone should treat each other with dignity, but that doesn’t mean that I have to believe your behavior, lifestyle, and beliefs are good for society.

So, Christians can oppose what is wrong and expose the flaws in the arguments that people are making—yet still treat an opponent in a kind manner.  Notice that the “politically correct” seldom do so; they generally resort to demonizing their opponents and mischaracterizing their motives.

Chimps

Also on October 8^th a story was published that takes us back to the insane world in which we now live:

A New York appeals court will consider this week whether chimpanzees are entitled to “legal personhood” in what experts say is the first case of its kind (A3).

Does this kind of thinking result from too many Planet of the Apes prequels and sequels?  Or is it the result of the efforts of the “animal rights” crowd?  Undoubtedly, it is the latter.  In this case, a lawyer has filed suit on behalf of a chimpanzee named Tommy.  The lawyer may be working pro bono (or pro banana).  The lawyer may have a credibility problem, however.  He claims that the chimp in question has been living in a dank, dark shed in upstate New York.  Tommy’s owner, however, claims that he lives in “a state-of-the-art $150,000 facility.”  That’s nuts!  How many human beings do not have a place to live that costs that much money—not only in the United States but all over the world?

The lawyer is seeking a ruling that will say that Tommy has been unlawfully imprisoned and that he ought to be released to a chimp sanctuary in Florida.  As a resident of this state, I can only speak for myself in saying that Tommy would be more welcome here than his attorney.  But more important than the place Tommy lives is the claim of “personhood.”

According to the paper, if Tommy’s lawyer wins, it “could lead to a further expansion of rights” for “elephants, dolphins, orcas and other nonhuman primates.”  Seriously?  With so many potential clients, law schools should be absolutely buzzing with new students specializing in Animal Law.  We can already anticipate a new television series, Lawyer on a Dolphin.  When asked how his latest case is going, he will look into the camera and crisply reply, “Swimmingly.”

Or there could be Orca the Friendly Killer Whale.  If they do one on elephants, they should bring back the character from Happy Days, Pinky Tuscadero.  This animal emphasis might give a whole new meaning to such old favorite series, such as Leave it to Beaver.  No doubt there will be a revival of Fury, My Friend Flicka, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, and Dumbo, the Flying Elephant.  Okay, we’ll mercifully skip all the cartoons.

The lawyer, who is also representing another chimp named Kiko, is using a legal mechanism usually used for human beings who claim to have been unlawfully imprisoned.  If the attorney wins the case, he will next argue bodily integrity so that animals could not be used in biomedical research.  Can’t that be fought on some other basis?  And if personhood is achieved, how soon will hunting be illegal?  God gave animals for food (Gen. 9:2-4).  In a sane world, animals would not be accorded the same status or rights as human beings.  So, we will have to wait for the verdict.

“So Help Me….”

Some are wondering what to do with the atheistic airman in Nevada who was not allowed to re-enlist because he refused to sign an oath that contains the phrase, so help me God.  At one time, enlistees were allowed to forego uttering these words, but that option has not existed since October 30, 2013.  Of course, the simple solution would be to allow anyone to re-enlist under the same terms of his original enlistment, but so far such a course of action has not been approved.  It would be the fairest thing to do in this situation while pondering the question if the phrase should be included at all.

As it stands now, the Air Force wants the phrase included, and they are seeking legal counsel in order to retain it, according to an October 5, 2014 article in the Orlando Sentinel (A14).  It is surprising that any part of our government would be so adamant concerning a phrase which recognizes Deity, considering the current social and political climate.  But one can always count on a liberal theologian to help out the enemy.  James Coffin, executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida, wrote:

As a U.S. citizen and a member of the Christian clergy, my advice to my fellow Christians is to consider two sets of principles: the law of the land and our Christian faith.

Could Mr. Coffin first of all point to a verse of Scripture that defines or even mentions “Christian clergy” or what an “Interfaith Council” is?  The word clergy does not appear in any version of the Bible.  Since it is supposed to be “Christian,” why does not Christ our Lord use the term?  Why didn’t His apostles, in any of their preaching or writing, ever use it?  It is that which is foreign to the Scriptures; Mr. Coffin obviously does not believe Colossians 3:17.  Likewise, an Interfaith Council lacks Biblical authority of any kind.  The New Testament teaches “the faith” (Jude 3).  Only one faith is claimed by the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4:5).  Although the columnist has already discredited himself as an expert on Christianity, nevertheless, his arguments should be considered.

He first appeals to the Constitution—in fact, to the First Amendment, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One must understand that in England there was an established religion—the Church of England.  Dissent was sometimes allowed, but it was not encouraged.  To require someone to invoke the name of God (which is about as generic as one can get) is not establishing a religion.

Coffin also refers to the Sixth Amendment, which mentions that no “religious test” shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.  Right.  But we understand that the “religious test” means, “Are you an Episcopalian?”  If not, you cannot serve.  The same thing would go for a Quaker, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, or any other test.  Does Coffin seriously think that our founding fathers who called upon God and His providence really intended these words to be in the Constitution for atheists?  Such a false notion is easily refuted.  These Constitutional arguments have no merit except possibly for liberal judges who desire to foist meanings that were never intended upon our society.

The Religious Argument

He invokes the third commandment by quoting the NIV’s mistranslation of the third commandment:  “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”  He does, however, insert in brackets the correct meaning, “take in vain.”  Misuse is such a tepid rendering that one wonders how anyone would ever obtain the correct idea from reading it.

So, Coffin’s argument is that the Air Force should not require any of its men to misuse God’s name by saying, “so help me God.”  How can an atheist misuse God’s name when he does not believe in God in the first place?  He can only take God’s name in vain (in his own mind) if he believes in God at all.  Coffin explains it this way.

From my perspective, if I seek to deprive atheists of their livelihood and the chance to serve their nation unless they call on God—when they don’t believe God even exists—I would be aiding and abetting the misuse of God’s name. What kind of God could possibly be honored by such coercion to make such a phony declaration? The Scriptures say, “The Lord detests lying lips.”

Yes, and the Scriptures say, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1).  Does Coffin want fools defending this country?  Does he want fools representing him in Congress, the Senate, the White House, the courts? How does he answer that question?  “Yes, I want fools defending us—but not lying fools.”  Oh, well, that would be different.

The Lord does detest liars, but He is not particularly fond of fools, either.  Is Coffin, therefore, making a very good argument?  While we are considering the subject of atheists and lying, on what basis does an atheist ever have to tell the truth?  The New Testament is the only basis for morality that exists.  Atheists cannot agree amongst themselves whether or not lying is always wrong.  Joseph Fletcher made that argument more than 50 years ago.  He was another clergyman (an Episcopalian who became an atheist).  Atheists may dispute whether or not lying is always wrong, but Christians believe that it always is.  Besides, he can get other jobs that don’t require honesty, such as being a mechanic or a politician (many, anyway)..

Coffin is missing an important point.  Often times companies, Christian schools, or various concerns may ask potential employees to fill out a loyalty oath, or sign a statement agreeing with the philosophy of the company or school.  Many churches ask for teachers and preachers to fill out a questionnaire to determine if those who want to teach will uphold the truth.  Someone may sign such an agreement but not believe portions of it—just so they can have the job.  The company is not trying to make any of them liars; it is a precaution.  If dissent is later observed, the person in question can be brought in and reminded, “You signed a statement of agreement, which you have violated.  This is grounds for dismissal.”

“So Help Me…” (Part 2)

Courts used to ask the question, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”  This was a solid approach to charging any witness.  What they said under oath had to be the truth.  They could not leave anything out of their testimony that was pertinent; it had to be all of the truth.  Nor could they embellish what they said with opinions and speculations.  What they said had to be factual.  They swore to do precisely that in the name of a higher power—the only Higher Power—God Himself.  Thus, everyone expected to hear the truth.

Did people lie under oath?  Yes.  But in so doing they damaged themselves and the credibility of their testimony.  Furthermore, they perjured themselves and could be prosecuted for lying.  With Coffin’s logic, we could not swear in an atheist since it might violate his conscience.  Oh, he might affirm that he will tell the truth, but why not say it the way it really is:  “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you yourself, as the highest authority you recognize?”

Yes, it sounds strange, but it is the truth.  For an atheist, there is no higher power.  He may bow to government in order not to sound like a megalomaniac, but if he disagrees with the government, he may protest and exercise his right to civil disobedience.  And, in fact, governments have been wrong, as have courts.  They were wrong in the Dred Scott decision; they were wrong on Roe v. Wade, and they are wrong not to review the rulings of judges who have overturned the will of the voters in passing laws recognizing only the Biblical concept of marriage.  Christians can say these decisions are unequivocally wrong based on what the Bible teaches.  If an atheist says he relies upon the government as the highest authority, what can he then say when the state is wrong?

The truth is that he does consider himself the highest authority there is; he elevates his own personal conscience to the level of Deity.  If this nation wants to rec-ognize a higher power than itself, then it is only relying on the truth, the way it actually is.  Any other system of operating a government is doomed to failure.  On our currency we say that we trust in God.  Do atheists not use cash, or are they coerced into it?  If we can acknow-ledge God there, we can do so with national security.

MARIJUANA AND AMENDMENT 2

In the November election, 2014, residents of Florida will be called upon to vote on medical marijuana for this state.  The Orlando Sentinel gave on September 26, 2014, a page-long column to those both for and against Amendment 2.  Ben Pollara encouraged readers to vote in favor of the amendment, saying it would be heartless to deny those who need marijuana, which serves as medicine for numerous ills (just about anything, actually).  Is it true that marijuana does help some conditions?  Yes.  Is this amendment only about helping those folks?  No.  It is about opening the door to increased marijuana usage.

Some individuals do actually benefit from some marijuana, and it is cheaper to buy than various drugs that “Big Pharma” produces and makes available.  So why not have compassion on those who do not have the money to pay large sums of money for costly prescriptions and just legalize it for those suffering with certain health problems?  If that could be accomplished in a way that would not advance marijuana usage among the general population, many of us would vote for it.  Alcohol and morphine are used to relieve pain; why not use marijuana for the same purpose?

Madelyn Butler wrote the opposing position in extremely fine fashion.  She begins thus:

The relationship between a doctor and a patient is a sacred trust and a legal bond. One of the most common treatments that doctors provide to patients is to prescribe medications. When writing a prescription, the doctor stipulates a specific medication, precise doses, how often and when it is taken, and for how long. Your doctor and pharmacist review every medication you are taking to protect you from adverse drug interactions. The entire process of testing, approving, manufacturing, prescribing and selling prescription medications is carefully regulated (A16).

Under Amendment 2, none of these safeguards are in place.  All that would be needed to obtain “medical marijuana” is a “recommendation” from a “licensed physician.”  Probably, as it has occurred in other places (such as San Francisco), so would it be here:  Marijuana would be prescribed for just about anything, including “trouble sleeping” (lawyers admit that this is not an exaggeration).  As Madelyn Butler put it:

And you wouldn’t be getting marijuana through a reputable doctor’s office. Like other states with these sham laws, people who want to smoke pot will visit a “pot doc”—someone of the same ethical ilk as the “pill-mill docs” that we’ve worked so hard to drive out of Florida.

Motives

The advocates for legalization say that opponents are simply using scare tactics to talk voters out of passing the amendment, which “establishes the right of seriously ill Floridians to use medical marijuana if their doctor recommends it” (A16).  Okay.  So those opposed to the amendment want seriously ill people to remain seriously ill?  Really?  Is this the best argument for voting in favor of Amendment 2?  Such is absurd on the face of it, and it ignores what has happened in other locales where the ill were used as a pretext for the camel to get his nose under the tent.

Pollara also argues that opponents of the amendment have suggested that legalizing medical marijuana could lead to date rape.  Probably very few have used such an argument, but it is no worse than blanketing all opponents as heartless.  Pollara insists that “the social ills predicted by hysterical opponents have simply failed to materialize.”  Has the man never heard of the city of San Francisco?  Type in the city and “marijuana” on the Internet.  Medical Marijuana cards are available for $10.  You can find a “weed” map where pot is sold.

There are no problems with legalization.  No kidding?  What world does Pollara live in?  Why, in the world of Mary Jane, everything is apparently wonderful.  The crime rate is down, suicide is down (never mind the evidence to the contrary), teenagers are using less marijuana.  Isn’t it marvelous?  One cannot help but wonder if the one making this case was not high on something when he wrote it?

He does not deal with the fact that marijuana is sev-eral times more potent than it was forty years ago or that it is particularly devastating to young people.  Just as marijuana is a gateway drug, so the “medical Marijuana” gambit is a gateway to having as many people smoking pot as have the desire.

No Accountability

According to Madelyn Butler, if someone is harmed or killed while using marijuana, the person who “prescribed” it to them cannot be held accountable.  She writes that John Morgan,

the trial lawyer bankrolling Amendment 2, runs ads for his law firm “seeking justice,” “for the people,” as he says—but under his amendment, marijuana would become the only drug for which those who recommend, sell or use it couldn’t be sued or arrested if something goes terribly wrong.

Does not this “blanket immunity” make marijuana a drug of privilege?  How about that?  It goes from illegal to a status of privilege in only one election.  The fact is that legalizing marijuana will be as detrimental to Florida as it has been to any other state.  People will be amazed at how many citizens are suddenly “helped” by smoking it—“for medicinal reasons,” of course.

Marijuana is not difficult to obtain now, let alone if it is legalized for any reason.  This writer knows of an individual who is already using marijuana for a legitimate medical purpose.  He has no trouble obtaining the substance, and probably neither does anyone else.  If pot is that easy to obtain while it remains illegal, what will happen if the voters decide to approve this amend-ment?  The answer is obvious.  It will be available to an even wider base of users, and (not surprisingly) much more of it will be grown here or imported from a nearby state.

Only one clear choice presents itself in voting on Amendment 2:  “Should we vote to expand the number of users of marijuana in Florida?”  A “yes” vote will most assuredly accomplish that goal.  A “no” vote will not eradicate marijuana use; the buying and selling of it illegally will continue to be done.  Chances are that those who need the drug for health reasons are already getting it.  Society does not need another element of corruption.  No one is employing scare tactics in recounting what will happen.  They have just examined what has happened elsewhere and are simply acknowledging reality.

SATANISTS’ MATERIAL

Gary W. Summers

On an episode of Dragnet years ago (the one that ran from 1967 to 1970), Sergeant Joe Friday and his partner Bill Gannon were dealing with a citizen skeptical about the need for the police to have guns.  (The conversation below is only an approximate one.)  An officer had been shot answering a burglary call, and the store owner seemed to think that if the officer had not had a gun, he might not have been shot.  Friday asked him in his usual terse manner:  “The officer was shot while protecting your store?”

Store owner:  “Yes, that’s right.”

Friday:  “Do you have a gun?”

Store owner:  “No, I told you I don’t like them.”

Friday:  “What do you suppose the robber might have done to you if an armed officer had not prevented him from doing so?”

The same case could be made with respect to morality.  If churches were not a civilizing influence on society, how bad might it be?  Yet Satanists want permission to hand out literature to school students, according to an article in the Orlando Sentinel on September 16, 2014.  “A religious group called The Satanic Temple is making plans to hand out literature in Orange County Public Schools later this school year…” (B2).

Is this really necessary?  Aren’t children today bombarded constantly by Satan?  Aren’t they already influenced toward immorality by television and movies?  Aren’t they taught to take God’s name in vain and to use foul, crude language?  Aren’t they taught that marital infidelity is normal and that drinking alcohol is the sophisticated thing to do?  Aren’t some of the devil’s humanistic teaching incorporated in school curriculums?  Are not many of their peers using drugs or engaging in fornication?  What possible need could today’s young people have for Satanic materials?

The Satanic Temple is jealous because sometimes Bibles or pamphlets have been allowed to be given to students.  But with nearly everything in society geared toward Satan’s way of thinking, is it really so terrible to hand out something to the contrary?  The Bible, if followed, makes people (in particular) and society (in general) better.  According to Daniel Webster (in a letter he wrote in 1852), Thomas Jefferson once told him: “I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”

This statement is true.  Husbands who follow the Bible will love their wives as Christ loved the church, and godly wives will submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-25).  Christians will strive to be good parents (Eph. 6:1-4).  All who study the writings of Paul and Peter will do their very best to be good citizens (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17).

When has Satan ever taught such lofty principles?  But Satanists want “equal” time to propagate their teachings.  The Satanic temple “supports social-justice causes and believes Satan is ‘the eternal rebel against the ultimate tyrant,’” according to the Sentinel (D2).  How talented is this group to compact two lies in only a seven-word description?  In the first place, Satan is not eternal.  His followers only wish that were the case be-cause they can then hold out hope that he has as much power as God and that someday he and his followers might even be victorious.  And, in fact, if Satan were eternal, why would he not have as much power as God?

The second falsehood is that God is the ultimate ty-rant.  If He were, why did He not destroy Satan a long time ago?  How many tyrants (let alone an ultimate tyrant) have we ever heard of who let a rebel stay on the loose for 6,000 years?  Tyrants eliminate their opposition.  The history of the world confirms this truth, as do the Scriptures.  The principle is stated very clearly and succinctly in 1 Kings 16:21-22:

Then the people of Israel were divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni…to make him king, and half followed Omri. But the people who followed Omri prevailed over the people who followed Tibni…. So Tibni died and Omri reigned.

Tyrants (and their followers) vanquish any challengers as quickly as they can.  The Satanic Temple has published a book that they want to distribute to children, which is called, The Satanic Children’s BIG BOOK of Activities.  Notice what one of the activities is:

Damian is showing his class the way to make an inverted pentagram. Connect the dots to make one yourself.

Damien (slight variation in spelling) is the name of the Anti-Christ in The Omen movie series.  He was born on June 6^th, at 6:00 A.M. (666).  The jackal who bore him died while giving birth; he was adopted by Robert Thorn, Ambassador to Great Britain.  And the movie continues from there.  But the Damian in the activity book is showing children how to connect the dots to draw a pentagram, a Satanic symbol.

And how is all of this going to benefit children?  And what, besides Satanic symbols and propaganda, will this book teach with respect to social justice?  Does it promote homosexuality, for example?  What about abortion?  Are these social-justice causes?  What view does it take toward marriage?  Don’t children already have access to sources promoting numerous forms of immorality?  How about letting them have some doses of purity and righteousness for a change?

Somewhere, sometime, people in the community must stand up to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Freethought Community, and the ACLU by telling  them, “This foolishness will not stand here.”

NO ONE IS BORN A HOMOSEXUAL

Marvin L. Weir [from The Reno Record, 9-14-14]

The quotes in the next three paragraphs of this article will be the comments of Michael L. Brown writing on September 8th as a guest columnist for OneNewsNow:

There is no clear evidence that anyone is “born gay.”  One of the major gay activist talking points, it has even infiltrated parts of the church—but it is based on lies, not truth.

Brown quotes gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio who says:

“Born gay” is an idea with a large constituency (LGBT and others). It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gay, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.

In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It is an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

It is simply the case that people desiring to live in sin will use any outlandish statement to try and justify their ungodly behavior.  In 2005, the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said, “Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the ‘gay gene’” [Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons].

Can one choose to believe that he or she was born to be a homosexual, a thief, a murderer, or any other number of things?  Absolutely!  But choosing to believe that something is true does not make it true!  For years a movement has been underway to deny that sin or wrongdoing exists.  And if one does commit sin or wrongdoing, it is said that he cannot help it because of a certain disposition from birth.

The Bible teaches us that human beings are created in the image of God and then emphasizes that “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27).  God also instructed the man and woman He created:  “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28).  The reproduction process is impossible for homosexuals to accomplish by themselves (two men or two women).  Common sense alone should be sufficient to convince rational people that God did not create humans with the possibility of having a “homosexual gene.”

The Bible clearly states that God “is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).  His will for all of mankind is the same—for each person to abide by His laws.  Environ-ment and society does indeed affect people, but all can choose to overcome their environment and society if they so choose!