Infant Baptism Refused for Incorrect Reasons
Dylan Stewart
Yesterday morning I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed and noticed a headline written by a local news station that caught my attention. The headline read, Reverend Refuses to Baptize Baby, Says Unwed Parents Are ‘Living in Sin’. To summarize the article, a Methodist preacher in Mississippi, after initially accepting a request to baptize an unmarried couple’s newborn child, changed his mind at the last minute for the following reasons: (1) the baby’s parents are “living together in sin,” (2) the baby “was conceived before marriage,” (3) although the couple are members at the congregation, they do not regularly attend the church services, (4) the grandmother of the baby is “living with a man in sin,” and (5) the preacher believes “it would set a bad example for the youth and children of the church” if he went ahead and baptized the newborn child. This article is worth consideration because although the preacher’s concluding action (not baptizing an infant) was correct, his reasoning actually makes him the one in the wrong.
The preacher was correct in declaring it sinful for the couple to live together while unmarried and he was accurate in noting it was a sinful union whereby the baby was conceived (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:1-3). He was also warranted in pointing out the sin of forsaking the assemblies (Hebrews 10:23-26). However, every reason that the preacher listed to defend his actions are all unsound justifications for rejecting the request of a newborn child being baptized. The District Superintendent where this Methodist church is located realized the error in the preacher’s reasoning and stated, “The parents of an infant being unwed would not be reason enough for a United Methodist pastor to refuse to perform an infant baptism.” This Methodist preacher serves as an example of how doing the right thing for the wrong reason invalidates our correct conclusions.
Instead of using false arguments based on Biblical truths to not baptize this infant, the preacher could have pointed out that a person must believe in Christ in order to be baptized. For instance, Jesus said in giving the Great Commission, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). That coordinating conjunction “and” links two things together – belief and baptism. Belief alone cannot save; baptism alone cannot save. Philip’s conditional statement to the eunuch in Acts 8:37 also serves as an example that proves this very point. Philip told the eunuch “if” he believed in Christ he could be baptized, directly implying that if the eunuch did not believe he could not be baptized. Having belief in Jesus as the Son of God, per John 3:16, and being willing to confess Him as such, per Romans 10:9, are things a baby is incapable of doing. If the preacher would have used this reasoning to refuse the request for baptism, his argument would have been sound. Similarly, he also could have explained that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16), and since babies have no sin (Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 9:11; Matthew 18:3; James 4:17), the newborn child did not need to be baptized. Instead, this Methodist preacher misapplied the Scriptures, leading to poor reasoning that invalidated his otherwise correct conclusion.
As result of this Methodist preacher’s unsound reasoning, he comes off as hypocritical. The mother of the child explains, “He knew all of the information of us not being married, all of that . . . We did, in fact, sin. But he knew all of that and he still agreed to it. If he had been straightforward from the get-go, this wouldn’t have been a problem with either of us.” Maybe put another way, if the preacher’s reasoning had been sound from the get-go, there wouldn’t have been a problem. This situation should serve as a lesson for all those practicing the unscriptural act of infant baptism. If those who practice infant baptism would accept the simple truth that there is no Bible authority for baptizing babies, they would avoid situations such as the one described in this article. Instead of manipulating the Bible to make it consistent with our false practices, let’s all trust and accept God’s Word exactly as it is written, thereby rejecting every false way.
__________
“That Many Pastors Can’t be Wrong”
Jeff Smelser
So asserted an advertisement for a direct mail service used by more than 1,000 churches. One would think that even with a passing familiarity with the Bible, people would be reluctant to determine the validity of something based on the number of people who believe in it.
When the twelve spies returned to the camp of Israel to report what they had seen in Canaan, ten of them said, “We are not able to go up against the people for they are too strong for us” (Numbers 13:31) while only two said “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it” (Numbers 13:30). The people, evidently thinking that surely ten spies couldn’t be wrong when only two spies offered a contrary opinion, balked at trying to invade Canaan. The ten were wrong— the two were right.
Goliath was a giant who opposed the army of Israel in the days of King Saul. It was the prevailing opinion that Goliath could not be defeated. “When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid” (I Samuel 17:24). It would have been easy for a youth such as David to assume that so many trained soldiers, could not be wrong. But you know the rest of the story.
The law of Moses warned against being swayed by a multitude: “You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice” (Exodus 23:2).
And Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Mt. 7:`13-14) And yet the stumbling block for many in obeying the pure gospel of Jesus Christ is that doing so would be an implicit denunciation of Christendom, and it seems that “millions professing Christians can’t be wrong!” They can be and they are. And the only way I can be right is to follow God’s word without being swayed by the multitudes.
Via Gospel Power
_________
Teach Me Your Way
(Psalm 86:11)
Mike Johnson
Psalm 86 is a psalm of David, and verse 11 is a part of a prayer he prayed during a time of extreme distress. People are trying to kill him (14), and he turns to God for help. He implored, “Teach me Your way, O Lord; I will walk in Your truth; unite my heart to fear Your name.”
It is interesting, although experiencing turmoil, that the Psalmist wanted to learn. The desire to learn is essential in gaining knowledge in anything, and this concept is especially true with the Scriptures. Consider Ezra’s heart described in the Old Testament (Ezra 7:10). “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel.” Other passages in the Bible teach this idea. For example, 1 Peter 2:2 says, “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.” (Some translations render the Greek word “crave” or “long for.”) In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Mt. 5:6). Thus, wanting to learn God’s will is essential.
Consider the following illustration. A young man was trying to learn the language of another country and was having trouble — it was a slow process. Finally, however, he met a woman from that country and learned the language in practically no time. What was missing earlier? It was the motivation! Similarly, we must be motivated to understand God’s Word to succeed.
To successfully learn God’s Word, it is also vital that we have a love for it. Consider the attitude of the Psalmist in Psalm 119:97 as he says, “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.” The first part of the verse relates to the second part — those who love the law of God are more likely to meditate on it “all the day.” Sadly, some may not care for Bible study because God’s Word condemns them for sins they are not ready to stop practicing.
Further, the text (11a) says, “teach me YOUR way.” We must be willing to submit to God’s will, not follow our own. From the earlier verses, it is clear that David knew who God was and wanted to humbly submit to His will, not someone else’s.
After expressing a desire to learn the Lord’s way, he says (11b), “I will walk in your truth.” The writer wanted to understand God’s way, not just for intellectual curiosity or to be able to have a conversation about it, but he wanted to “walk,” or live, by God’s Law. In the earlier verses, we learn what God has done, but we must do our part to know and obey His will.
Yet what is truth? Pilate asked this question at the crucifixion of Jesus (Jn. 18:38). Philosophers have also asked it throughout the history of mankind. The Scriptures teach that God’s Word is truth. In John 17:17, Jesus prayed to God for His apostles just before His arrest, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (Note also Eph. 3:3-4; 1 Thess. 2:13; Gal. 1:12; 2 Tim. 3:16-17.)
We also see in Proverbs 23:23 that truth is vital as it says, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding.” The writer compares truth to a commodity. First, we should do anything it takes to “buy” it; then, we should not give it up for any price. Only truth (“Your way”-11a) can make us free (Jn. 8:32).
Then he says (11c), “Unite my heart to fear Your name.” Many people have divided loyalties, as their hearts may not be entirely into an endeavor. This type of heart is also found as people try and serve God. Since God alone is God (10c), the Psalmist did not want a divided heart where he might partially serve God but also serve other idols or gods. If he did this, he could never walk in God’s truth (11b).
Are we motivated to learn God’s truths? Do we, like the Psalmist, strongly desire to know God’s ways so we can walk in his truth with an undivided heart?
__________
Not Growing Old
This frail old shell in which I dwell
Is growing old, I know full well–
But I am not the shell.
What if my hair is turning grey?
Grey hairs are honorable, they say.
What if my eyesight’s growing dim?
I still can see to follow Him
Who sacrificed His life for me,
Upon the Cross of Calvary.
What should I care if Time’s old ploy
Has left its furrows on my brow?
Another house, not made with hand,
Awaits me in the Glory Land.
What though my tongue refuse to talk?
What though I falter in my walk?
I still can tread the Narrow Way,
I still can watch, and praise and pray.
My hearing may not be as keen
As in the past it may have been,
Still, I can hear my Savior say
In whispers soft, “This is the way.”
The outward man, do what I can
To lengthen out his life’s short span,
Shall perish and return to dust
As everything in nature must.
The inward man, the Scriptures say,
Is growing stronger every day.
Then how can I be growing old
When safe within my Savior’s fold?
Ere long my soul shall fly away,
And leave this tenement of clay,
This robe of flesh, I’ll drop, and rise
To seize the “everlasting prize”–
I’ll meet you on the Streets of Gold
And prove that I’m not growing old.
John E. Roberts
__________
The Intoxicated Cat
A letter in the newspaper was written by an unhappy woman who complained that her husband thought it funny to make her pet cat drunk by pouring gin in its milk. The distressed woman complained that the cat would dance like mad, stagger around in circles, and finally fall in a heap in the corner and go to sleep. Besides, the cat was losing all her hair as a result of the diet; and what did a cat look like without any hair?
Immediately, letters poured into the newspaper from aroused readers all over the country, denouncing the husband and suggesting various degrees of punishment for a man who would be so cruel to animals.
Perhaps I have a warped sense of humor, but the reaction of readers struck me as ironically funny. Give an animal liquor, and you are considered cruel. Give a man liquor, and you are considered sophisticated. Let an animal reel, act foolish, fall into a drunken stupor, and immediately it is an occasion for readers from coast to coast to howl in protest. Let a man do the same thing, and we simply ignore it.
We shouldn’t give liquor to a dog or a cat. It is inhumane. Yet, we give it to our sons and daughters, business associates, and friends. With all the advertising media at our command, we continually urge them to drink it. It’s not fit for a dog or cat, but it is fit for our children! How crazy can we get?
__________________________________
Editor: Mike Johnson
www.seekingthingsabove.org
====================================================