Old Article about C.S. Lewis
For those of you interested in Apologetics or Theology or Christian history, I recently came across this 1947 article about C.S. Lewis from TIME magazine. It is an interesting read from a period when he was alive and flourishing as an author. It’s worth your time to read as it gives you more of a feel for what he was like than some modern writings. The article was written during a period of Lewis’ life when he was in great demand as an author and speaker. You can access it here.
Let Go
Those words are pretty powerful. Let go. The phrase can be said in a variety of tones with a plethora of inflections. But when we actually “Let go”, it usually signals a release. We “let go” of something. We allow it to move away from us. We release our control on it or over it. It is free from us and we are free from it. And usually, we feel it right away. The struggle is often in the letting go itself. Once we let go, we sense in our very bodies or souls the monumental struggle we had been having just holding on to “it”, whatever it was.
Francois Felenon was a Catholic Archbishop in the late 1600′s. He was a reforming leader in the Catholic church and didn’t always have a great relationship with other Catholic leaders. His writings sometimes brought him into trouble with the current Pope or the Inquisition. However, he was a faithful Catholic throughout his life and did much on behalf of that church. Because of that, I can’t recommend everything he wrote, especially as a Protestant pastor. But, he clearly knew Christ as Lord, and one little book of his that both my wife and I (and many Protestants over the years) have gleaned much from lately is titled, “LET GO.” I want to quote at length something that he wrote almost 400 years ago in this little book:
“Even now my soul is suffering, but I am aware that it is the life of self which causes us pain; that which is dead does not suffer. If we were really dead, and our life hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3), we would no longer struggle with those pains in spirit that now afflict us….But when you receive your cross unwillingly, you will find it doubly severe. The resistance within is harder to bear than the cross itself! But if you recognize the hand of God, and make no opposition to His will, you will have peace in the midst of affliction. Happy indeed are they who can bear their sufferings with this simple peace and perfect submission to the will of God! Nothing so shortens and soothes suffering as this spirit of non-resistance….Because the stubborn clinging to life which makes the cross necessary in the first place, also tends us to reject that cross-at least in part. so we have to go over the same ground again and again. We end up suffering greatly, but to very little purpose. May the Lord deliver us from falling into that state of soul in which crosses are of no benefit to us.” -Francois Felenon, LET GO, letter 2.
Sometimes bearing our cross means being able to “let go” of whatever we thought should be happening in our particular situation and taking up what God seems to want for us here and now. When we hold on to our own desires for our circumstances, we resist God himself. When we “let go” we are released to bear the cross each day, walking behind our beautiful savior, Jesus, becoming his disciples.
The Life of William Borden
A friend of mine sent me this information on a man who completely gave his life to Christ, no reserves, no retreats, no regrets. I would like to share it with you. It comes from the web site: http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/regret.htm
“Do not put out the Spirit’s fire.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:19
William Borden’s life
Quotations taken from Borden of Yale, by Mrs. Howard Taylor, Moody Press, Chicago
In 1904 William Borden graduated from a Chicago high school. As heir to the Borden family fortune, he was already wealthy. For his high school graduation present, his parents gave 16-year-old Borden a trip around the world. As the young man traveled through Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, he felt a growing burden for the world’s hurting people. Finally, Bill Borden wrote home about his “desire to be a missionary.”
One friend expressed disbelief that Bill was “throwing himself away as a missionary.”
In response, Borden wrote two words in the back of his Bible: “No reserves.”
Even though young Borden was wealthy, he arrived on the campus of Yale University in 1905 trying to look like just one more freshman. Very quickly, however, Borden’s classmates noticed something unusual about him and it wasn’t that he had lots of money. One of them wrote: “He came to college far ahead, spiritually, of any of us. He had already given his heart in full surrender to Christ and had really done it. We who were his classmates learned to lean on him and find in him a strength that was solid as a rock, just because of this settled purpose and consecration.”
During his college years, Bill Borden made an entry in his personal journal that defined what his classmates were seeing in him. That entry said simply: “Say ‘no’ to self and ‘yes’ to Jesus every time.”
Borden’s first disappointment at Yale came when the university president spoke in a convocation about the students’ need of “having a fixed purpose.” After that speech, Borden wrote: “He neglected to say what our purpose should be, and where we should get the ability to persevere and the strength to resist temptations.” Surveying the Yale faculty and much of the student body, Borden lamented what he saw as the end result of an empty, humanistic philosophy: moral weakness and sin-ruined lives.
During his first semester at Yale, Borden started something that would transform campus life. One of his friends described how it began: “It was well on in the first term when Bill and I began to pray together in the morning before breakfast. I cannot say positively whose suggestion it was, but I feel sure it must have originated with Bill. We had been meeting only a short time when a third student joined us and soon after a fourth. The time was spent in prayer after a brief reading of Scripture. Bill’s handling of Scripture was helpful. . . . He would read to us from the Bible, show us something that God had promised and then proceed to claim the promise with assurance.”
Borden’s small morning prayer group gave birth to a movement that soon spread across the campus. By the end of his first year, 150 freshman were meeting weekly for Bible study and prayer. By the time Bill Borden was a senior, one thousand of Yale’s 1,300 students were meeting in such groups.
Borden made it his habit to seek out the most “incorrigible” students and try to bring them to salvation. “In his sophomore year we organized Bible study groups and divided up the class of 300 or more, each man interested taking a certain number, so that all might, if possible, be reached. The names were gone over one by one, and the question asked, ‘Who will take this person?’ When it came to someone thought to be a hard proposition, there would be an ominous pause. Nobody wanted the responsibility. Then Bill’s voice would be heard, ‘Put him down to me.’”
Borden’s outreach ministry was not confined to the Yale campus. He cared about widows and orphans and the disabled. He rescued drunks from the streets of New Haven. To try to rehabilitate them, he founded the Yale Hope Mission. One of Bill Borden’s friends wrote that he “might often be found in the lower parts of the city at night, on the street, in a cheap lodging house or some restaurant to which he had taken a poor hungry fellow to feed him, seeking to lead men to Christ.”
Borden’s missionary call narrowed to the Muslim Kansu people in China. Once he fixed his eyes on that goal, Borden never wavered. He also challenged his classmates to consider missionary service. One of them said of him: “He certainly was one of the strongest characters I have ever known, and he put backbone into the rest of us at college. There was real iron in him, and I always felt he was of the stuff martyrs were made of, and heroic missionaries of more modern times.”
Although he was a millionaire, Bill seemed to “realize always that he must be about his Father’s business, and not wasting time in the pursuit of amusement.” Although Borden refused to join a fraternity, “he did more with his classmates in his senior year than ever before.” He presided over the huge student missionary conference held at Yale and served as president of the honor society Phi Beta Kappa.
Upon graduation from Yale, Borden turned down some high-paying job offers. In his Bible, he wrote two more words: “No retreats.”
William Borden went on to do graduate work at Princeton Seminary in New Jersey. When he finished his studies at Princeton, he sailed for China. Because he was hoping to work with Muslims, he stopped first in Egypt to study Arabic. While there, he contracted spinal meningitis. Within a month, 25-year-old William Borden was dead.
When the news of William Whiting Borden’s death was cabled back to the U.S., the story was carried by nearly every American newspaper. “A wave of sorrow went round the world . . . Borden not only gave (away) his wealth, but himself, in a way so joyous and natural that it (seemed) a privilege rather than a sacrifice” wrote Mary Taylor in her introduction to his biography.
Was Borden’s untimely death a waste? Not in God’s perspective. Prior to his death, Borden had written two more words in his Bible. Underneath the words “No reserves” and “No retreats,” he had written: “No regrets.”
Portions based on material in Daily Bread, December 31, 1988, and The Yale Standard, Fall 1970 edition.
Halloween
I read an interesting article today from the Resurgence on the history behind Halloween. Read it here and let me know what you think!
Questions about Christianity – Who decided which books would be in the Bible?
This blog is adapted from the appendix in my book, Read the Word. You can purchase the entire book here.
When I was young, my friends and I made our ultimate all-star teams from our baseball card collections. We’d spend hours laboring over which players to include on our teams. When we were finished, we’d compare and contrast each team, endlessly picking over the finer points of each player’s batting averages and home runs. We were only eleven years old, but it was serious business to us. Of course, the selections we made involved some interpretive decisions on our part. There was always room to criticize each other’s decisions because we all came from a biased viewpoint. I don’t think any of us ever completely agreed on anything.
When it comes to the Bible, how did the church, with so many leaders, ever agree on the sixty-six books that would make up what we consider the Old and New Testaments? In this blog, I wanted to give you the background on how the books of the Bible came together in the first place.
Ultimately, the books in the Bible are there because God directly inspired them. He directed and guided their writing to such a degree that the men who wrote them were writing from their own perspectives but writing timeless and divine truth. How that happened is still somewhat of a mystery. We do know that the Holy Spirit led the authors of Scripture as they wrote (1 Pet. 1:21).
However, from a human perspective, how did the Bible get put together, and who decided it should be the books we have today? Can you be sure that the books you have in your Bible today are really the ones that are supposed to be there? To answer that question, we must go back to the beginning of Christianity ― actually, to the one who began it.
Christianity began with Jesus, and Jesus was a Jew. Jesus believed in the Scriptures of the Jewish nation, which we now call the Old Testament. Jesus taught from the Old Testament and considered it the supreme guide for life. He said in Matthew 5:17-18, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
In his day and age, the Jewish Bible was known as “The Law and the Prophets.” When Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, he didn’t question their origin. He knew they were from God. Whenever Jesus talked about the Old Testament, it was with the utmost reverence. Therefore, because of Jesus’ high view of the Old Testament Scriptures, the apostles continued to use the Old Testament when teaching about Jesus. To them, it was a given that the Old Testament was God’s Word.
In the first years of the church, all the Christians were Jews. They already believed and revered the Old Testament as Scripture. They believed that the Old Testament Scriptures spoke about Jesus, and they spent their time convincing other Jews of this. The book of Acts contains many examples of Paul going into Jewish synagogues and preaching Jesus as the Christ, using the Old Testament Scriptures. Acts 17:1-3 provides one such example.
“Paul and Silas…came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was Paul’s custom, he went to the synagogue service, and for three Sabbaths in a row he used the Scriptures to reason with the people. He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead. He said, “This Jesus I’m telling you about is the Messiah.”
I could cite many other Scriptures as well, but I think you get the point. The early Christian church used the same “Bible” as the Jews. We now call it the Old Testament. The real question is, “how did they come up with the belief that certain books should be placed alongside the Old Testament Scriptures to form a new portion of the Bible?” In studying church history, it seems that the early church had one main test that a book had to meet before they considered it worthy of being Scripture. Was the book written by an apostle or a close friend of the apostles? Along with this one test, they had some rational criteria for whether it should be included or not. These can be stated as:
The Test – “Was it written by an Apostle or close associate of an Apostle?”
An ancient manuscript copy of the New Testament
Additionally, it seems that they worked through a couple of other questions in determining if a book was truly scriptural. First, they thought, “Is it accepted by the whole church?” They also asked, “Is it consistent with the Old Testament and other New Testament Scripture?” and lastly, “Does it have the “feel” of Scripture?”
Let’s briefly examine these four questions and why the early church asked them.
Was It Written by an Apostle or a Close Associate?
It was important to the early church to keep a record of the teachings of the apostles, and it was vital that the church have a direct link to Jesus. If a book was being considered for Scripture, it had to have been written by an apostle or someone in their circle of friendship and influence. The apostles Peter, John, Matthew, and Paul account for twenty-one of the twenty-seven New Testament books. James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus, account for two books. Luke and Mark, friends of the apostles, account for three, and the book of Hebrews, whose authorship is debated, rounds out the list of books. Even in Hebrews, there is evidence that the author, whoever he was, was close to the original followers of Christ, for he wrote, “I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released from jail. If he comes here soon, I will bring him with me to see you” (Heb. 13:23). This verse shows that the author of Hebrews was a friend of Timothy, who was a close friend of Paul. All the authors of the New Testament pass the test of either being an apostle or being well within the sphere of the apostle’s friendship.
For instance, church history records that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark as he followed and wrote down the sermons of the apostle Peter. Peter called Mark “my son” in 1 Peter 5:13, so we know that Peter and Mark had a close relationship. Although an apostle didn’t write Mark, someone close to an apostle did.
Another example is the book of Acts, which was written by Luke. He was not an apostle but was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. In the later chapters of Acts, the travel log of Paul and his companions switches from a “they” voice to a “we” voice, as in “we traveled to such and such a place.” Luke was with Paul on some of his journeys, which provides evidence that Paul approved of Luke’s writings. In addition to this, Paul mentions Luke as one of his companions in chapter 4 of Colossians. While Christians wrote many commendable documents in the years after the church started, the only ones that made it into Scripture were those written by apostles or close associates of the apostles.
Is It Accepted by the Church? The reason I underlined the word “Church” is because I’m not referring to one church or a group of churches in an area, but to the leaders of the entire church in the Mediterranean world. The leaders of the church did get together and talk. They also wrote letters to one another. It was a foregone conclusion that a book was Scripture only if the entire church recognized the book’s importance. Certain books had an appeal to a group of churches in a certain area, but only the books that everybody knew about made it into Scripture. It’s not just that a certain book was more popular or appeared on a first-century version of the New York Times best-seller list. Rather, it needed to be both well-known and highly valued by the church. Remember, there were only twelve original apostles. When Paul or John wrote a letter to a church, it was so important that church did everything it could to get that letter reproduced and into the hands of the other churches. In Colossians 4:15-16, Paul wrote, “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.”
From the earliest times, Christians have been voracious copiers of Scripture. This may not seem amazing in our day of Christian bookstores and twenty different Bible translations, but it was extremely important before the invention of the printing press and in a culture in which Christians were persecuted. I once read that the English word “traitor” comes from a word meaning “hander over,” referring to Christians who handed over copies of the Scriptures to the Roman authorities who arrested them for their faith. The early Christians were intensely committed to the Scriptures. Also, the church was not divided into Catholic, Protestant, and various other denominations until hundreds of years after the apostles died. Therefore, the unity of the bishops or pastors of the churches was more important than it might seem today. The early church consisted of people from places as diverse as Rome, Italy, and Alexandria, North Africa. A book was confirmed as Scripture only when it had a majority of support from a wide spectrum of the church. When they all agreed about something, it was significant.
Is It Consistent with the Old Testament and Other New Testament Scripture? The document in question had to line up with the other Scriptures already accepted by the church. If a book or letter contradicted the teaching of Jesus or the record of the Old Testament, it was not considered Scripture. When you read the book of Romans, you see that Paul had a firm grasp of the Old Testament law and its relationship to our hearts. Paul accurately described the role and purpose of the Old Testament law as seen through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Acts 7 records a long sermon from the deacon Stephen, in which he accurately recounts Israel’s history and comes to the same conclusions as Jesus did in Matthew 23:29-36. Stephen’s speech is consistent with both the Old Testament and with Jesus’ words about the current leaders of Israel. Hebrews 11 lists what many consider to be the “hall of faith” of Old Testament heroes. It accurately describes the lives of Abraham, Moses, and many others. All the books called Scripture by the early church had an accurate view of the Old Testament Scriptures and the teaching of Jesus. This point is important because the early church leaders faced constant opposition from the Jewish leaders. They needed to prove that Jesus and the church he started correctly interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures about the Messiah.
Does It Have the “Feel” of Scripture? Early Christians spent hours committing the Scriptures to memory. They could tell the difference between profound writing and something that was not. You do essentially the same thing when you distinguish great fiction from dime-store fiction. Early Christians were better at it because the leaders of the church read Scripture all the time and they regularly read, out loud, entire portions of the Bible to their congregations. A lot of people back then couldn’t read, and they didn’t have their own Bibles at home anyway. If they wanted to remember something about Scripture, they had to memorize it. The early church leaders spent their lives, their time, their energy, and their intellects devouring Scripture. Even most pastors today don’t have the memory for Scripture that those men had. The early church leaders didn’t have five hundred other books on ministry in their personal libraries. Before the printing press made the printed word widely available, everything had to be copied by hand. Parchments were expensive and time-consuming to produce, so the only books church leaders had were usually Scripture or writings from the previous bishop of their church.
Consequently, when they read a fake letter or even good Christian teaching, they could usually tell right away that it wasn’t the same as the Holy Bible, inspired by God. A good example is the letter to the Corinthians from Clement of Rome (not the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians written by Paul). Clement was an early church leader, but his letter to the Corinthian church did not pass the tests, or criteria, of being divinely inspired scripture. Historians believe the author was the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, and his letter was read in some early churches; but it never gained the status of Scripture precisely because it isn’t Scripture. It was not divinely inspired, and it didn’t pass the four tests. Therefore, even though it’s good reading, it isn’t contained in the collection of inspired literature, our Bible. The bishops who read it over and over came to the conclusion that it didn’t have the feel of Scripture, and they were right.
In conclusion, it is better to say that the early church discovered which books should be counted as Scripture rather than that they decided upon Scripture. There was never a group of people who came together and said, “Let’s make these books our sacred writings.” Instead, they came together and agreed that the stamp of God’s hand was obvious on certain books.
It did take more time for a few New Testament books to be agreed upon than others. Serious debate took place on only five of the twenty-seven New Testament books that we now have in our Bible. In the end, the church agreed that those five books were also divinely inspired. There were other books that were written by early Christians that did not make it in as scriptural. Two of those are I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. If you wonder whether they should be scripture, my encouragement is that you should read them. You will see very quickly that although they contain some good material, they are nowhere near the books of the New Testament in spiritual value.
I hope this has helped you understand why the books in the Bible today are the ones God intended us to have. You can be certain that what you are reading is, in fact, the inspired Word of God. It was tested by the early church and found true. The writings of the Old and New Testament are what God intended the church to have.
Questions about Christianity – Hasn’t Christianity killed more people in the name of religion than any other faith?
This question has various names and facets, but basically, it comes up as “Christianity teaches love and peace, so why is it responsible for more deaths than anything else in this world?” This is a penetrating question in terms of why a teaching would be ignored by people who supposedly embrace it, but before I answer it, I need to clear away some of the misinformation.
First, Christianity is not responsible for more deaths than any other religion or movement in world history. If you take the communist dictators of the 20th century, they account for over 26 million deaths alone. In fact, nobody knows for sure what the exact toll is for Russia alone, whose communist leadership slaughtered untold millions in the last century, all in the name of a movement that purported to be for the good of the people. For more information on this subject, just read Jonathan Glover’s “Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century”
Next, many incidents in the past have grown larger than their actual importance or statistics because of an ability to use them as examples against Christianity. Two of the most popular are the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials. Both of these circumstances are used to condemn Christianity and all organized religion. In reality, these events are indeed stained with instances of religious violence, but also with the reality of nation, race and historical circumstance. What I mean is that we look back on those events with a certain perspective that has been created for us by those that are against Christianity itself and the facts of the matter are much deeper than simple propaganda.
Regarding the crusades, I would encourage you to look to the writings of Dr. Christopher Tyerman, a professor at Oxford, especially his book, ”Fighting for Christendom.” Tyerman brings together some of the complex circumstances that were involved in the events of the crusades. Whatever your perspective, his writings will challenge the notion that the crusades were simple religion masking as imperialism.
The same can be said of the Salem Witch Trials. In all, a sum total of 25 people were executed as a result of the trials. This is a tragedy, but not on the scale of how the trials have been portrayed as evidence of the faults of religion. Some people think that thousands of people were executed as a result of what they have been told or read in history books. Additionally, though the trials themselves occurred in 1692-1693, as early as 1705-1710 entire churches and communities were apologizing for their role in the trials themselves. So, if it was Christianity that produced the trials, it was also Christianity that produced the repentance and sorrow to the families of the victims of these trials. Along with this, it must also be noted that the modern hospital system, university system, the model of the non-profit organization and other humanitarian organizations that exist today were overwhelmingly created by people who were explicitly Christian in their beliefs and actions. Therefore, the good that Christians have done must be thought of as well as the bad.
In just these two instances of the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials, an objective inquiry will reveal that although followers of Christ have been at times guilty of gross injustice, there are also forces at work which seek to distort those events for the purpose of vilifying Christianity.
However, even if these historical events have been distorted for use against Christianity, it does not thereby excuse the events themselves. Indeed, Christians must deal with the question of why Jesus’ followers don’t often seem to follow Jesus teaching about violence. The Christian doctrine of Sanctification teaches that as Christians grow in their faith, they become more and more like Jesus. But, Christian doctrine also teaches that we all continue to fall prey to sin, temptation, greed and evil. The history of the church it full of examples of people who sacrificially gave up everything: money, possessions, ease of life,etc.. in order to help others. The history of the church is also full of people who continued to pursue their own selfish gain after claiming to be converted to Christ.
Jesus told us that a tree would be identified by its fruit. A good tree will produce good fruit and a bad tree would produce bad fruit. At the end of the day, people to do wretched things cannot be associated with Jesus and his movement. Even though Christianity is a movement of heart change, it is also a movement where Jesus said, “they will know you are my followers by your love for one another.” Actions reflect heart intentions. Anyone who commits vicious acts of violence against others in the name of Jesus is not associated with him, even if they say that they are.
Jesus himself claimed the right to separate those who called themselves his followers versus those who really are his followers in Matthew 25. In that chapter, Jesus says, “Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord” but they won’t get into heaven. It is the people who actually do the will of Jesus that will be granted entrance into heaven. This is not a works based theology, but a doctrine which teaches that heart salvation will eventually be reflected in outward actions that reflect Jesus himself.
So, in conclusion, it cannot be claimed that Christianity is guilty of the worst atrocities in world history, it simply isn’t true. There have been people throughout history who have done terrible things, even in the name of Christ, but this can’t be placed at the feet of Jesus himself, who taught and lived a perfect model of God’s love.
Questions about Christianity – What is the Bible’s idea about infant baptism?
This is a great question and one that has been much debated in the history of the Christian church. All Christians believe that Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples and to baptize them, Matthew 28:18-20. However, very early in the Christian church, people began questioning whether or not they should baptize their children. It is easy to come to a quick decision on this matter without taking the time to work through the different positions, but allow me to take you a little deeper in order to show you why people differ on this question. Before I do, it is important to understand that this issue has been very divisive in the history of the church, with people actually dying over this question. But that need not be so. One of the things that the Christian c
hurch must become more adept at is recognizing secondary issues and acting in charity to Christians who may disagree.
In the New Testament, when a person decided to follow Jesus, they were usually baptized that very same day. In some passages, we see that their entire family was baptized, Acts 16:15, Acts, 16:33, I Corinthians 1:16. This is really the crux of the matter. Now, before I get into the different sides, it must be agreed between both parties that baptism does not save anyone, infant or adult. Baptism in the New Testament is given as a SYMBOL of the work that Christ has done within us. It is also used as a SIGN of entrance into the community of Christ. Those that believe that baptism saves a person are not in line with the biblical doctrine of salvation by Grace alone through faith alone.
At this point, people begin to argue over whether someone should show an outward expression or confession in Christ before they are baptized. People who believe in what is called “Believers baptism” argue that this is the safer road and what is explicitly commanded in the New Testament. Those who believe in “Infant Baptism” argue that a child growing up in a Christian home receives all the rights of a Christian and therefore, baptism should be one of those privileges because they are truly a part of the Christian community. There are ALL sorts of arguments back and forth between the camps.
Here are some issues that have become important to me as I have talked with others, baptized them, wrestled with this issue, and read pretty extensively on the issue:
-The Christian Church began to baptize their newborn children very early in church history. This became an issue because the Christian church was such a set apart community that adults who had married in the church suddenly found themselves to be parents. Their children would be raised completely in the Christian church and inside this new community. Therefore, they believed that the child should be baptized BECAUSE it would be discipled like any other disciple of Jesus in this new community.
-Many people in the evangelical church are very wary of infant baptism because of the Roman Catholic doctrine that the baptism of infants actually confers grace to them. In practical terms, it saves the child. Since the New Testament does not teach this, people want nothing to do with infant baptism. In this sense, I totally agree.
-All the traditional Protestant denominations baptize their children. Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican believers baptize their children. ALL of the Protestant Reformers were in favor of infant baptism. Luther, Calvin, Zwingle were all in favor of infant baptism and they were the chief proponents of salvation by grace alone, so to say that infant baptism leads to salvation by works just does not do the historical argument justice.
-MOST evangelical denominations today are against infant baptism. Historically, this happened for a couple of reasons. In America, the Baptist denomination clearly won out as the denomination and theological structure for Americans. The very title, “Baptist” has roots back to the days after the Reformation. They believed in the Protestant Reformation, except the baptism of infants. To be a Baptist means that you only baptize believers. Americans are also very individualistic and less community oriented. Therefore, this flavor of doctrine has more appeal to them.
-People often make the argument about children who are baptized as infants and how they walk away when they get older, so therefore, we should wait to baptize people until they can confess Jesus on their own. But I find this to be extremely weak. Here is why: Unfortunately, I could recount to you stories (as any pastor could) of people who I have baptized as adults who have completely walked away from the faith. In fact, I would say that rate of “walking away” would be similar in terms of children vs. adults who have been baptized. So, does that mean that we should not baptize adults, because some walk away? Of course not. I would say the same about children.
In my own Christian journey, I have come to the place where I believe infant baptism to be a biblical practice on certain conditions. 1) If the parents are raising their children in a Christian discipleship environment, and 2) As long as the parents understand that the baptism of the child does not confer the grace of salvation to the child.
I believe that baptism signals the entrance into the Christian community, whether child or adult. In the ancient church, you weren’t really even considered a Christian until you had been baptized, that is how serious they were about it. It is the signal that you are following Jesus. All of my children were baptized soon after they were born, and they are still following Jesus! 
Having said that, I realize that there are VERY smart and mature Christians who disagree with me. In fact, at the church that I pastor, the elder board of the church disagrees with me on this issue. However, because we all recognize this issue to be secondary, they allow me to express my belief about the matter and I do justice to both positions when I teach about baptism from the pulpit. This is not a matter over which Christians should divide. Our fellowship in Christ is stronger than our belief in what age a person should be when they are baptized.
So, as to the original question. What is the Bible’s idea about infant baptism? I would say that the Bible says that we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus. I would also say that the New Testament allows for and probably encourages people to baptize their children. However, there are many who disagree with me. Study the issue for yourself. Read the New Testament and look into the matter.
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead: Part VI
The preaching of the resurrection of Jesus was the focus of the early preaching and message of the early church.
If you read the early documents of Christianity, specifically the book of Acts in the Bible, you will find something remarkable. Whenever the apostles preached a sermon, it always happens to focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, it would seem fool hardy that Jesus’ close followers continue to harp upon the very point where they are the weakest. But what you see is an absolute laser like focus upon the resurrection of Jesus as the vindication from God the Father that Jesus was indeed the anointed one, the Messiah sent from God. The apostles could have chosen to preach on love or justice or equality, but for the most part, they didn’t. they chose to focus directly on the one subject that seems most outlandish to the regular person. But they did this because it is precisely what proves Christianity to be the true religion. The resurrection of Jesus from the grave. If Christianity is a fairy tale or a wish fulfillment system born out of the disciples false hopes for a messiah, it doesn’t make sense to focus so resolutely on the one event which could have been proven to be untrue, especially in the places where the apostles were preaching (more on that one next blog). But if in fact Christianity is true, and Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then it makes perfect sense for the apostles to narrow their preaching to this one earth shattering event: the resurrection of the Son of God from the grave.
Martin Luther on Sin and the Law
Martin Luther was the main catalyst for the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517. He was a learned man, a monk, a pastor and a theologian. He literally changed the course of western civilization and that can’t be said of many men. One of Luther’s greatest contributions to Christian thought was his ability to break biblical thought down into one of two categories, “Law” or “Gospel.” In his greatest work, “The Bondage of the Will” he describes the difference between Satan’s view of the Law and how God properly uses the Old Testament law to drive us to see our own sin.
“But the Scripture sets before us a man who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick and dead, but who through the operation of Satan his lord, adds to his other miseries that of blindness, so that he believes himself to be free, happy, possessed of liberty and ability, whole and alive. Satan knows that if men knew their own misery he could keep no man in his kingdom; God could not fail at once to pity and succour wretchedness that knew itself and cried out to Him, for God is proclaimed with mighty praise through the Scripture as being near to the broken-hearted. Thus Isaiah 61 bears witness that Christ was sent “to preach the gospel to the poor, and to heal the broken-hearted.” Hence the work of Satan is to hold men so that they do not recognize their wretchedness, but presume that they can do everything in the law that is stated. Bu the work of Moses the Lawgiver is the opposite of this-namely, through the law to lay open to man his own wretchedness, so that, by thus breaking him down, and confounding him in his self-knowledge, he may make him ready for grace, and send him to Christ to be saved. Therefore, the function performed by the law is nothing to laugh at, but is most emphatically serious and necessary.” “The Bondage of the Will” chapter 4, p.162.
The Last Supper
Jesus often ate meals with his disciples. On the night before he was crucified, he instituted communion as he and his disciples were celebrating the Passover meal. The Passover meal was a celebration of God delivering the Israelites from slavery in Egypt over fifteen hundred years before Jesus’ time. In the middle of the Passover meal, Jesus broke with tradition and gave them bread and wine and told them to share it among themselves, claiming that it represented his body and his blood, which were about to be given for them. Only he knew the significance of what he was doing. The disciples would come to realize it later, after the resurrection.
Evangelist Billy Graham has spoken to more people on the planet about Jesus than anyone in the history of the world, but his wife, Ruth Bell Graham, was also a powerful Christian. She wrote a poem about this night in history, the night Jesus instituted communion. Here it is:
Communion
“This is My body
broken like bread for you
this is My blood
like water shed for you.”
Drink it – and wonder.
Marvel – and eat.
God torn asunder,
man made complete!
Stagger the mind
at Truth here revealed:
kneel – and be broken,
rise – and be healed.
Go out and die,
die, live and live!
Take all He offers,
take all and give.
Here’s a remembering
to scorch and to bless:
sinners partaking
God’s righteousness.
…
Lord, this is my body…
Ruth Bell Graham
About
Matt was born and raised in Carlsbad, Calif. Although he grew up in a devout Christian home, he struggled and rebelled against the Lord as a teenager. However, at eighteen, Matt gave in to God’s love and submitted to Jesus. Soon after, he met and married his wife Kelli. They now have six children and love the role that God has given them as parents.
In 1998, Matt graduated from Vanguard University with a degree in Ministry and Leadership. He is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Westminster Seminary, California. For the last eighteen years, he has worked for a variety of Christian ministries including Horizon Christian Fellowship, the Christian Research Institute, and Carlsbad Community Church.
In 2005, the Lord called Matt to plant Rancho del Rey Christian Church in Carlsbad, California. Matt’s heart desire is to help people see Jesus in all his glory. He and his wife are passionate about parenting, adoption, The Bible, missions, discipleship and helping people see Jesus in every aspect of life. His life’s calling is to present the Jesus of the Bible to people who don’t yet believe, and to encourage fellow Christ-followers to live in complete, life-altering obedience to God. He recently authored his first book, Read the Word: The Bible was written for you.
