Life is hard. The Gospel is easy.

Life never turns out the way we expect. I never expected to be divorced. I never expected financial troubles. I never expected child heartbreak.

But I also never expected the pure Gospel.

The pure Gospel is always outside of you. Always forgiving in gracious Words. Always poured over you. Always placed on your tongue and poured down your throat.

God's gracious Words always come to us through the mouth of the minister and are always effective, regardless of what others think of us. Regardless of even what the minister thinks of us. Regardless of what even we think of the minister.

No matter where you are at in life. No matter how dark your past or present or future is. No matter how much you have lost.

Christ was crucified FOR YOU.

Christ is delivered TO YOU in Baptism. In Absolution. In the Supper.

Objectively and certainly.

Because this God wrapped in His Word and Sacraments in Christ is always gracious. Always forgiving.

He remembers that we are but dust. Therefore He does not break the bruised reed, nor does He put out the smoldering wick.

Your sins are forgiven.

Response to John MacArthur on infant baptism, Part 1

Here’s a paragraph  from an online sermon by John MacArthur, used by many folks who want to defame the view of infant baptism and those who hold to them:

“For example, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, ‘All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.’ And he would come from a Lutheran tradition,but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there. The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible.”

Besides the fact that it is not true to say that the Lutheran and Anglican churches hold to that infant baptism isn’t taught in the Bible or by the earliest fathers (passing off a heretic as Lutheran or speaking for Lutherans is like saying Marcion or Arius had sound doctrines and spoke for the early church), it is also very ironic that MacArthur would want to even appeal to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers as argument infant baptism is not true since it is absent from them.

Here’s why: do you know what is absent not only from them but also from all of earliest Christianity and for many centuries afterwards? MacArthur’s own denials that baptism being means of grace and own view of baptism being a symbol that does nothing to save.

A future article will point out what the Lutheran Church teaches in regards to infant baptism in relations to what the Bible and earliest Christians taught, and why what he said about that church is completely untrue there.

This article will point out the whole idea of baptism being a mere symbol that does nothing is completely foreign to the thoughts of the early church. Outside the Incarnation denying Gnostics, who reject any use for any sacrament, MacArthur has no one on his side. And it is seriously doubtful he wants to claim Gnostics Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against, given he actually has use for them as ordinances.

Consider what the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers (the very ones MacArthur wants to claim on his side) have to say on baptism:

Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 11: “This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.”

Shepherd of Hermas, Ninth Similitude, Chapter XVI: “Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God.”

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 18: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.”

Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, Chapter 6: “ Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply.”

The Didache, Chapter 9: “But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”

None of the writings of earliest (Apostolic) fathers treated baptism as a mere symbol disconnected from salvation and rebirth. Ignatius told Polycarp to endure his baptism as his salvation based on his view of baptism being sanctified water based on the fact Christ was baptized. The other writings like Barnabas and Hermes spoke of baptism in terms of rebirth and forgiving sins.

Nor can MacArthur find any support from the fathers afterwards on the topic that baptism is just a symbol we do after inward change in us:

First Apology of Justin, Chapter 61: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 18: “Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.”

Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Irenaeus’ Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching: “First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God.”

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 21: “And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.”

Theophilus' To Autolycus, Book II: “On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.”

Tertullian’s On Baptism: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”

And the list goes on and on. These fathers held to the views of baptism that MacArthur would have deemed as heretical even more so than holding to infant baptism by itself in non-salvation ways.

So when he tried to play card of look at what the fathers taught on baptism as proof how wrong others are, it falls flat to appeal to them on the baptism issue when he would see their views as completely heretical. 

Even if we assume he is right infant baptism wasn’t taught early on, it would still predate his view of baptism as doing nothing towards salvation (among Trinity believers) by many, many many centuries. 

Here we stand.

How Luke 18:15-17 screams infant faith, rebirth and baptism

What does Luke 18:15-17 have anything to do with infant baptism?

A proper understanding of baptism as well as the themes of faith, rebirth and blessing of Christ means that text has everything to do with it.

How so?

Consider Christ’s words in regards to babies brought to Him in the text:

“Let the little children come to me.”

The words “come to Me” in every other context as spoken by Christ refer to saving faith in Him. For example, Christ said no one can “come to Me unless the Father draws him”(John 6:44). 

Just the fact He said that should be enough to show He was talking about saving faith when He said “let them come to Me.”

But that’s not all He said.

He followed:

“For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

Now, how can one see or enter the kingdom of God?

In John 3:5, He said:

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

So rebirth is required to see or enter the kingdom of God.

Yet, here in Luke 18:15–17, Christ said that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. And the kingdom of God belongs then, by rebirth in this case babies who “come to Me” (or in other words, have saving faith in Him).

To make His point even more clearer, He said next:

“Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Notice He didn’t say infants aren’t old enough to receive the kingdom of God. He said we of age are to receive the kingdom of God like a little child. And receiving the kingdom of God is by rebirth (of water and Spirit) and is through faith.

He made it abundantly clear He was speaking of infant faith (of which we are to emulate) and rebirth (as entrance into the kingdom of God.

And born of water and Spirit as entrance into the kingdom of God was universally recognized as a baptismal saving text in the early church.

The early audience reading the text as baptized children of God would have caught the baptismal and sacramental language when Christ said the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mark 10:16 added that Christ placed His hands on them and blessed them.

What does it mean to have the blessing of God Incarnate?

Galatians 3:14 reads:

“He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

Christ’s blessing is us being justified by faith alone in Him.

So in multiple ways, what occurred here scream support for infant faith and rebirth.

Not to mention infant baptism.

It’s not just because Christ referred to born of water and Spirit as to how one enters the kingdom of God as to why one sees the baptismal reference.

It’s how baptismal texts themselves treat baptism as means of coming to (or having saving faith in) Him.

For example, Galatians 3:26-27 states:

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Better yet, consider what Revelation 22 says:

“The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!’Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.”

Such a text uses both Christ’s “come to Me” faith and water baptismal rebirth language. 

Likewise, Hebrews 10:22, alluding to the promise of God to give rebirth in Ezekiel 36:25-27, reads:

“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.”

Both texts speak in baptismal terms where we are bid to have our bodies washed with pure water as means God changes our hearts that we by faith draws near to Him in the water of life.

Now, people will say infants didn’t choose to be baptized so how can that be true?

But infants didn’t choose to have their parents bring them to Christ. Yet Christ said that the infants were the ones who came to Him, who had faith that we must emulate and have the kingdom of God that comes by rebirth.

The baptismal texts have all such promises: we are joined to Christ, through faith, we are washed by Him with water through the Word, given rebirth in Him, and through faith, are blessed as children of Abraham according to the promise.

Baptism is how Christ tells us (regardless of age) to “come to Me.”

Here we stand.

Citing passages that don’t use the word baptism on salvation don’t cancel out texts that do

One of the favorite go to arguments it seems when baptism saving grace passages are quoted, besides claiming those refer to waterless Spirit baptism, is to throw out texts on faith or believe in Christ claiming no mention of baptism at all so baptism must not be saving.

The more common texts folks like to throw out are John 3:16, Ephesians 2:1-8, and Romans 10:9-13. The irony is each of those three texts are in the same writings of which baptismal saving texts are most commonly referred to.

Take for example John 3:16. That passage is part of an ongoing lesson Jesus was giving Nicodemus that started at the beginning of John 3. And the first thing Jesus taught him was to be born again- of water and Spirit. That text historically (see for example, Irenaeus’ Fragment 34) as well as today is cited by those who affirm baptismal saving grace or regeneration. So the argument Jesus mentioned nothing about baptism in John 3:16 fall flat to those who see John 3:3-8 as reference to baptism. (Not to mention Christ spoke of faith in  sacramental language in verses 14-15 referring Moses lifting up the snake.)

With Romans 10:9-13, that text follows several chapters after Paul spoke of us being buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life in Romans 6:1-4. So those then reading his epistle would have known about baptismal saving grace by the time they get to being told to confess Jesus is Lord and called on His name to be saved. Not to mention the fact Paul spoke of his own baptism as means of calling on Christ’s name to have his sins washed away in Acts 22:16.

And when folks throw out Ephesians 2:1-8, where we are told God made us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins as His grace to save through faith, they ignore Colossians 2:11-13 say exactly the same thing but added that being buried with Christ and raised with Him to new life is means to that end. Even aside from that, it is not like Ephesians is lacking in baptismal references we can point out. Ephesians 4:4-6 states there is only one baptism, not two, while Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washes us with water through the Word.

So in regards to go to passages some folks like to throw out as argument from silence, the response is that it is not accurate to say the passages when taken in context are silent. Either they are linked to an ongoing baptismal discussion, as in the case of John 3:16, or they are in the same writing that does state baptism is means of saving grace through faith as in the cases of Ephesians 2 and Romans 10.

Now to dance around these points, they go to their other favorite argument: such texts refer to waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth. Besides the fact Acts 2:38 states we receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance and being baptized, and the fact Paul says there is only one baptism, not two, there is a serious side effect as a real result of their argument from silent tactic, that kills even their own only waterless Spirit baptism saves or gives rebirth claim.

People can make Scriptures say what they want Scriptures to say using this horrid method. If they want to deny need for repentance, then they can say John 3;16, Mark 16:16 or Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t mention repentance. Also, passages like 1 Peter 3:21 doesn’t use the words faith, believe or repent. So does that mean by their logic we don’t need to repent and believe to be saved?

Ultimately, this argument from silence also kills their view of only waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth saves. Remember they argue the word baptism isn’t used in their prooftexts so it isn’t needed. By such rationale, baptism of any kind (if we assume their premise of waterless Spirit baptism saving) is not needed. And not even their waterless Spirit baptism saves using this methodology.

Guess what other word(s) is not mentioned in texts like Romans 10:9-13? Rebirth (or born again). So guess we don’t need rebirth, right?

That is only if we play by their rules of arguments from silence.

At the end of the day, this horribly flawed method violates a cardinal biblical interpretation rule: the clear passages interpret the less clear passages. Taking passages, that are silent, to cancel out passages that aren’t silent at all blatantly breaks that rule.

Here we stand.

“Baptism saves” is a direct quote from Scriptures that have many evangelicals scrambling to dance around it

Many times the first jerk reaction that many of the modern evangelicals when they hear or read the word “baptism saves” is to say that’s heresy. This is despite the fact that this is a direct quote of 1 Peter 3:21.

So how do they respond when that text is pointed out to them?

Many will argue that since the text says the water symbolizes baptism that now saves you, water baptism must be a symbol of a waterless Spirit baptism that now saves us. But that is completely distorting what Peter was saying. Verse 20 clearly shows he was referring to Noah’s flood as the water that symbolizes baptism that now saves us. (No such distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism exist in Scriptures.)

Another argument is that baptism saves us not by removal of dirt from the body so it must not be water baptism. The problem is if no water is involved, Peter would have no need to point out it isn’t the physical cleansing part that does the saving. And we affirm fully baptism saves not by water in itself but by the Word joined to the water. As Luther pointed out in his Large Catechism, without the Word, there is no baptism but just plain water. What he said is fully Scriptural, in line with the apostle Paul saying Christ washed us with water through the Word in Ephesians 5:26.

So water is involved when we have our sins washed away, but it is not the water itself that washed away our sins. Rather, it’s through the Word, that makes baptism, as how we have our sins washed away. And the Word, that makes baptism, is Christ crucified for our sins. It’s the Gospel proclaimed to us. Hence, it is why we call baptism the Visible Gospel. Baptism is an outward physical means of the Gospel preached to us, and by which Christ comes to us to deliver unto us His finished work at the Cross. 

The point is that whenever folks argue against us with we are not saved by dirt removed from the body, they are erecting a strawman against us. We don’t affirm dirt removed from the body is what saves us. We affirm, as Hebrews 10:22 says, that while our physical bodies are washed with pure water, it is God who sprinkles our hearts to sprinkle us from a guilty conscience, through faith.

Which brings up the next objection people use which is 1 Peter 3:21 states baptism is presented as an answer of good conscience hence it is our good work we do in response to being saved. In other words, they pit that part of the text against the part that says baptism saves.

Their own mindset is baptism must be our good work (a false view since no Scriptures treat being baptized as some good work we do for God) so that can’t save. In their need to affirm their version of faith alone, they actually undermine and even destroy it here. That’s the ultimate irony.

How so? Saying anything we do as an answer of good conscience is extremely problematic (to put it mildly) when it comes to justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. These two concepts hinge on the fact nothing we can do can clear our conscience or clear us of our guilt for our sins. So how can any good work we do give us a good conscience? It can’t.

Let that sink in. 

Now, let’s go back to Hebrews 10:22. It reads:

“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.”

That text shows us having an answer of good conscience does not come from ourselves but from God sprinkling our hearts as our bodies are washed with pure water. Baptism is means of grace by which we are drawn to God through faith. And in Christ, we have our answer of good conscience. It’s not from us but from what He did.

And that’s exactly what 1 Peter 3:21 states. 

Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ. How? It’s the outward means of the good news given unto us. The good news is Christ died and rose again on our behalf. He is our answer of good conscience. Baptism is itself Christ to us, washing us with water through the Word. It’s where through faith, we are clothed with Him. And with us being clothed with Him, we have His forgiveness won at the Cross so that our sins may be washed away.

So a proper understanding of baptismal saving grace or regeneration, rather than undercutting or undermining justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, actually supports both concepts. Baptism saving us as an answer of good conscience not based on us but rather on what Christ did for us squares with imputation of righteousness, where we are declared righteous based on Christ’s merits, not our own. Arguing baptism is a good work we do as an answer of good conscience, far from salvaging justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, actually destroy both concepts paramount to the faith.

Here we stand.

Modern evangelical hatchet job on Acts 2:38

A straightforward reading of Acts 2:38 would require affirming baptism as means of saving grace.

The text, after all says,

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So how do so many evangelicals today justify reading that text as showing baptism is our work we do after we are saved and forgiven?

The most common argument tends to be when the text says “for the forgiveness of sins,” they argue that the word “for” can mean “because of.” (John MacArthur comes to mind.) Never mind for the sake of this article the fact that no Bible translation sees it that way and no one historically thought to argue that way from the text.

The ones making this very novel argument would say that the text is really saying be baptized because of forgiveness of sins you already got as now public act of obedience to show your salvation to others.

Note the inconsistency here. They argue the word “for” means “because of” in referring to baptism but never to the repent part. But the text says to repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of sins, not just be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

They have no problem saying repent for the forgiveness of sins as meaning unto and for purpose of receiving the forgiveness of sins. Their issue is with the idea of being baptized unto forgiveness of sins. They argue that baptism must be our work or act of obedience so therefore it can’t be means of receiving forgiveness of sins lest we fall into works based salvation. (That is why they take many other baptismal saving passages and say it’s waterless Spirit baptism.)

They love the analogy you take Tylenol because of a headache not unto a headache. But it is a silly untenable analogy for this reason: a headache isn’t a cure. Forgiveness of sins is a cure. So you would take it to “cure” a headache. By their logic, forgiveness of sins would be like a disease rather than the cure!

Ultimately, there is a serious side effect to them twisting the heck out of this and other passages.

If we go by what they claim, the text would read “repent to be forgiven then because of that do your work of baptism. And you will receive the Holy Spirit.”

Let that sink in.

If we go by their argument, your own act of obedience as public testimony ends up being prior to even you receiving the Holy Spirit.

They always ignore the part that says “and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” that follows and results from “repent, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” in the text. (Not to mention such clause kills their waterless Spirit baptism claims.)

But regardless, their forced reading of the text has them having a work they do done even prior to having the gift of the Holy Spirit. And that, friends, is the very works based salvation they falsely accused us of based on their false view that baptism is a human work we do.

Here we stand.