Before examining what the doctrine of creation proves about God, consider what it proves about man.
A. Man Was Created in the Image of God, a Little Lower than the Angels.
The teaching of creation
Genesis 1:26,27 - Man was created by God in the likeness and image of God.
Psalm 8:3-5 - God made man a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor.
Failure to appreciate this leads to mistreatment of other people.
Genesis 9:5,6 - Murder of humans is forbidden, because humans were made in the image of God.
James 3:9,10 - Cursing man is wrong, because men were made in the likeness of God.
The reason is it wrong to mistreat another human is because they are in the image of God. They are just as important to God as we are. To mistreat them is to mistreat one who is like God.
This is why Jesus often said that how we treat other people is how we treat Him (Matt. 25:31-46).
Failure to understand this leads to practicing such evolutionary concepts as "survival of the fittest," so "might makes right." People believe if they are able to overpower others, then they have the right to do so: they are more "fit." Extreme manifestations of this were the holocaust and Communist massacres: eliminate those who are "unfit"!
When we understand the Bible doctrine of creation, we learn why it is wrong to mistreat other humans. We did not make them. They don't belong to us. They belong to God - the same God who made us and to whom we belong. In many ways they partake of His nature, so we must not mistreat them.
[Malachi 2:10; Job 31:13-15; Prov. 14:31; 17:5; 22:2]
B. Man Was Created to Have Authority over the Animals and the Earth.
The teaching of creation
Genesis 2:7 - Contrary to evolution, man was not made from the animals. We are fundamentally different from animals. We were made directly from the earth in the image of God.
Genesis 1:26,28 - God created man to have dominion over all other living things and to subdue the earth.
Psalm 8:6-8 - God made man to have dominion over the things God made. All livings things are under our feet (subject to us).
Psalm 115:14-16 - The God who made heaven and earth then gave the earth to man. That is, it is subject to our control to use for our purposes. God had the right to give us this control, because He made both us and the earth.
Failure to understand this leads to devaluing people and overvaluing animals and the earth.
Evolutionists, animal rights groups, the New Age Movement, and pagans all fail to see the proper dominion of man over animals and the earth.
Some view the earth as a living thing, a goddess named Gaia, so we must try to please it and take care of it. Some even worship the earth.
Others view killing animals as morally similar to killing people, so we should not eat meat or wear fur clothing, etc. An Internet student recently said his wife objects to his hunting, because she doesn't want him to kill animals. She wants to buy meat at the store!
Genesis 9:2-6 - Animals are given into our hand (control) and can be used for food. Animals were not made in God's image, but people were.
1 Timothy 4:3,4 - Some people forbid eating meats, but God created them to be received with thanksgiving.
Killing an animal is not the moral equivalent of killing a man. Why? Because of the doctrine of creation! Animals and the earth were made by God to be subject to our control. This does not justify cruelty or waste or other forms of poor stewardship, but it does justify using them for our good.
Failure to understand and believe the Bible doctrine of creation leads to failure to understand our own position in the universe. What could be more basic than that?!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Bible Doctrine of Creation:How Essential Is It to the Faith of a Christian?
How important is the doctrine of creation to the Christian faith? May a believer accept theistic or organic evolution? Is the Genesis account of creation literal history and fact, or is it figurative myth and legend? May we believe the days of creation were long ages, or must we accept them as literal days? How does creation relate to the wisdom, power, Deity, and eternal nature of God? How fundamental is creation as evidence for the existence of the one true God and for the Bible as God's word?
Introduction:
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Bible clearly and repeatedly claims that God made the heavens and the earth and everything in nature.
Some doubt the significance of this doctrine to the faith of a Christian.
Some teach that the days of creation may be long ages of thousands or millions of years, or that such long ages may have occurred between the days of Genesis 1. In attempting to defend such folks, other people have said that we should tolerate such beliefs, because creation is not a fundamental doctrine anyway. Some see significance in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection and our baptism and imitation of Him. They say the creation account is not so essential, so it should not be viewed as fundamental to our faith.
The purpose of this study is to consider the significance and importance of the doctrine of Creation to Christianity.
Is it really essential to believe it? Why or why not?
We will see that understanding and accepting creation is fundamental to our faith that God exists and the Bible is His will.
These issues must be resolved before we even consider the significance of Jesus' death. If we do not believe in God and the Bible, why would we even consider believing in Jesus' sacrifice?
New Testament teachers sometimes dealt with idol worshippers, who did not believe in the true God. Before they ever discussed Jesus' death, they began by giving evidence that such folks should believe in God (Acts 14 & 17). This evidence included the doctrine of creation. Creation is definitely fundamental to a Christians' faith.
Any belief that undermines, belittles, or weakens the Bible doctrine of creation thereby undermines, belittles, or weakens faith in the existence and nature of God and the Bible as God's word.
This is true, not just of evolution, but of any view that weakens the doctrine of creation.
Consider the Bible evidence for the importance of the doctrine of creation to our faith in God and His word.
Introduction:
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Bible clearly and repeatedly claims that God made the heavens and the earth and everything in nature.
Some doubt the significance of this doctrine to the faith of a Christian.
Some teach that the days of creation may be long ages of thousands or millions of years, or that such long ages may have occurred between the days of Genesis 1. In attempting to defend such folks, other people have said that we should tolerate such beliefs, because creation is not a fundamental doctrine anyway. Some see significance in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection and our baptism and imitation of Him. They say the creation account is not so essential, so it should not be viewed as fundamental to our faith.
The purpose of this study is to consider the significance and importance of the doctrine of Creation to Christianity.
Is it really essential to believe it? Why or why not?
We will see that understanding and accepting creation is fundamental to our faith that God exists and the Bible is His will.
These issues must be resolved before we even consider the significance of Jesus' death. If we do not believe in God and the Bible, why would we even consider believing in Jesus' sacrifice?
New Testament teachers sometimes dealt with idol worshippers, who did not believe in the true God. Before they ever discussed Jesus' death, they began by giving evidence that such folks should believe in God (Acts 14 & 17). This evidence included the doctrine of creation. Creation is definitely fundamental to a Christians' faith.
Any belief that undermines, belittles, or weakens the Bible doctrine of creation thereby undermines, belittles, or weakens faith in the existence and nature of God and the Bible as God's word.
This is true, not just of evolution, but of any view that weakens the doctrine of creation.
Consider the Bible evidence for the importance of the doctrine of creation to our faith in God and His word.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Part IV. Can Infant Baptism Be Scripturally Defended?
Remember that practices displease God unless they are authorized in His word (see our introduction). We now know that the gospel clearly teaches conditions regarding baptism that babies cannot possibly meet. Yet some folks still claim that infant baptism is Scriptural. We have briefly answered several such efforts already. Let us notice some more.
A. Babies with Faith
Some people claim that babies can have faith, and therefore they should be baptized (note Matt. 18:6). But remember that denominations typically baptize babies as young as a few days or a few weeks old. Can anyone seriously believe that babies, at this age, can have the kind of faith the Bible requires before baptism?
Romans 10:13-17 - Faith comes by hearing God's word.
The only way anyone can have faith is by being taught God's word. Do churches that baptize babies teach them before baptizing them? Of course not. So they are baptizing people who have no faith.
They do, however, try to instill faith in these children later in life in "confirmation." Why is this necessary, if the child had faith and knowledge from infancy? The practices of these churches prove of themselves that they know babies do not have knowledge and faith.
And remember that 1 Cor. 14:20 expressly states that babies are not capable of having sufficient understanding to be baptized and be members of Jesus' church.
What about repenting and confessing?
We have shown that these are also required before baptism. Can babies do these? And remember that the confession must be understandable so that other people know the candidate has sufficient faith to be baptized.
And what about the responsibilities that are involved in church membership?
Can babies do these too? Remember, all baptized people are in the church and must learn to fulfill these duties. Even if babies had faith, that would only be part of what God requires. Other things are required, both before and after baptism, that babies cannot possibly accomplish.
Just suppose babies could believe. Logically, then, babies could also DISbelieve.
But the Bible says to baptize the ones that believe and not the ones that do not believe (Mark. 16:16; Acts 8:12,36,37; etc.). Do folks who practice infant baptism make a distinction between the babies that believe and those that don't? If so, how?
The Bible describes different degrees of faith (Heb. 10:39; cf. Jas. 2:19; John 12:42,43; Matt. 14:31). Children gradually grow in understanding and in faith, but they do not have "saving" faith, sufficient to be baptized, until they are old enough to repent, confess, and fully accept the responsibility of living the Christian life, as we have already studied.
B. Household Conversions
Some people refer to Bible examples where whole households were baptized. They claim that these households must have included babies, so infant baptism is authorized. But notice:
None of these examples actually say that babies were included.
Many households do not include babies or even small children. If the Bible does not mention babies, then to claim there were babies in the household would simply be an unproved assumption. The simple fact that households were converted proves nothing by itself. Unless these passages themselves show us that babies were included, then we must settle the issue on the basis of other passages on the subject.
We have cited clear, specific evidence that people who were baptized must always first hear, believe, repent, and confess, and that they must be baptized for the right reason, and that they must be able to accept the responsibilities of church membership. Babies can do none of these things. It is a misuse of Scripture to assume without proof that babies were included in the household conversions, in contradiction to this evidence.
The contexts of the household conversions actually imply those who were baptized included no babies.
Notice each of the Bible examples of household conversions:
Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11
Peter taught these people that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). So whatever anyone in the household did to be baptized, all the rest must have done the same things. Peter did not give two sets of rules, one for babies and another for adults.
Notice some things that people in this household did that babies cannot do: all in the household feared God (10:2,35); all came together to hear and receive what God had commanded (10:33,44; 11:1,14); they heard and believed (15:7,9; 10:43), they repented (11:18), and they were told to work righteousness (10:35). No babies baptized here!
Furthermore, since God is no respecter of persons, we are not going to find any examples of conversion in which less was required of people than in the examples we have already studied. Some examples may give fewer details, but no one in any household was baptized without faith, repentance, confession, etc. If such a case existed, God would be a respecter of persons.
Lydia's household - Acts 16:13-15,40
In this case there is no reason to believe that Lydia was even married, let alone that she had little children. The Bible teaches that, if a woman has a husband, he should be the head of the household (Eph. 5:22-25). So whenever the Bible refers to the activity of a household, if the husband is included in that activity, if the wife is mentioned by name then the man is also mentioned. (Notice how the other household conversions demonstrate this. Genealogies also followed this rule.)
Since Lydia's household was baptized, the fact that no man is mentioned would imply that she was the head of the household. Her household may have included relatives, especially older relatives, and perhaps servants, but no husband is implied, let alone children.
Paul later "encouraged" those who were brethren (NKJV), including Lydia's house (v40). Did this include babies?
The Jailer's household - Acts 16:23-34
Before this household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Again, babies can't do these things, so no babies were included in the number baptized here.
Stephanas' household - 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15
Again, what verse says there were babies in this household? Note that Stephanas' house ministered to the saints. Again, people who are baptized must be old enough to be active in God's work as members of the church. This does not include babies.
The household conversions do not disprove what we have learned elsewhere. Instead they harmonize with it. All who are baptized must do things that babies cannot do. Therefore, the command to be baptized does not include babies. When people baptize babies, they follow human authority, and they displease God.
Conclusion
Infant baptism is objectionable for several reasons. By examining the problems in infant baptism, we have also shown how people should be baptized properly.
First, infant baptism is an unauthorized change in God's pattern for baptism. God tells us whom to baptize. He tells the conditions people must meet in order to be baptized, but babies do not fit. To baptize babies is to act by human authority without divine authority.
Second, infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct so they should be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins!
A final objection to infant baptism is that it is almost always done by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. But the Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). A person must go down into the water and come up out of it (Acts 8:38,39; Mark 1:9,10). Bible baptism requires much water (John 3:23). Infant baptism does not fit God's pattern on any of these points. The evidence clearly shows that Bible baptism is an immersion, not a sprinkling or pouring.
What should a person do if his baptism was not done the way the Bible teaches? He should realize that he simply has not yet obeyed God, and he needs to obey God by being baptized according to the Bible (Acts 19:1-6). If this is your need, we urge you to find a faithful local church belonging to Christ and be baptized Scripturally today!
A. Babies with Faith
Some people claim that babies can have faith, and therefore they should be baptized (note Matt. 18:6). But remember that denominations typically baptize babies as young as a few days or a few weeks old. Can anyone seriously believe that babies, at this age, can have the kind of faith the Bible requires before baptism?
Romans 10:13-17 - Faith comes by hearing God's word.
The only way anyone can have faith is by being taught God's word. Do churches that baptize babies teach them before baptizing them? Of course not. So they are baptizing people who have no faith.
They do, however, try to instill faith in these children later in life in "confirmation." Why is this necessary, if the child had faith and knowledge from infancy? The practices of these churches prove of themselves that they know babies do not have knowledge and faith.
And remember that 1 Cor. 14:20 expressly states that babies are not capable of having sufficient understanding to be baptized and be members of Jesus' church.
What about repenting and confessing?
We have shown that these are also required before baptism. Can babies do these? And remember that the confession must be understandable so that other people know the candidate has sufficient faith to be baptized.
And what about the responsibilities that are involved in church membership?
Can babies do these too? Remember, all baptized people are in the church and must learn to fulfill these duties. Even if babies had faith, that would only be part of what God requires. Other things are required, both before and after baptism, that babies cannot possibly accomplish.
Just suppose babies could believe. Logically, then, babies could also DISbelieve.
But the Bible says to baptize the ones that believe and not the ones that do not believe (Mark. 16:16; Acts 8:12,36,37; etc.). Do folks who practice infant baptism make a distinction between the babies that believe and those that don't? If so, how?
The Bible describes different degrees of faith (Heb. 10:39; cf. Jas. 2:19; John 12:42,43; Matt. 14:31). Children gradually grow in understanding and in faith, but they do not have "saving" faith, sufficient to be baptized, until they are old enough to repent, confess, and fully accept the responsibility of living the Christian life, as we have already studied.
B. Household Conversions
Some people refer to Bible examples where whole households were baptized. They claim that these households must have included babies, so infant baptism is authorized. But notice:
None of these examples actually say that babies were included.
Many households do not include babies or even small children. If the Bible does not mention babies, then to claim there were babies in the household would simply be an unproved assumption. The simple fact that households were converted proves nothing by itself. Unless these passages themselves show us that babies were included, then we must settle the issue on the basis of other passages on the subject.
We have cited clear, specific evidence that people who were baptized must always first hear, believe, repent, and confess, and that they must be baptized for the right reason, and that they must be able to accept the responsibilities of church membership. Babies can do none of these things. It is a misuse of Scripture to assume without proof that babies were included in the household conversions, in contradiction to this evidence.
The contexts of the household conversions actually imply those who were baptized included no babies.
Notice each of the Bible examples of household conversions:
Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11
Peter taught these people that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). So whatever anyone in the household did to be baptized, all the rest must have done the same things. Peter did not give two sets of rules, one for babies and another for adults.
Notice some things that people in this household did that babies cannot do: all in the household feared God (10:2,35); all came together to hear and receive what God had commanded (10:33,44; 11:1,14); they heard and believed (15:7,9; 10:43), they repented (11:18), and they were told to work righteousness (10:35). No babies baptized here!
Furthermore, since God is no respecter of persons, we are not going to find any examples of conversion in which less was required of people than in the examples we have already studied. Some examples may give fewer details, but no one in any household was baptized without faith, repentance, confession, etc. If such a case existed, God would be a respecter of persons.
Lydia's household - Acts 16:13-15,40
In this case there is no reason to believe that Lydia was even married, let alone that she had little children. The Bible teaches that, if a woman has a husband, he should be the head of the household (Eph. 5:22-25). So whenever the Bible refers to the activity of a household, if the husband is included in that activity, if the wife is mentioned by name then the man is also mentioned. (Notice how the other household conversions demonstrate this. Genealogies also followed this rule.)
Since Lydia's household was baptized, the fact that no man is mentioned would imply that she was the head of the household. Her household may have included relatives, especially older relatives, and perhaps servants, but no husband is implied, let alone children.
Paul later "encouraged" those who were brethren (NKJV), including Lydia's house (v40). Did this include babies?
The Jailer's household - Acts 16:23-34
Before this household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Again, babies can't do these things, so no babies were included in the number baptized here.
Stephanas' household - 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15
Again, what verse says there were babies in this household? Note that Stephanas' house ministered to the saints. Again, people who are baptized must be old enough to be active in God's work as members of the church. This does not include babies.
The household conversions do not disprove what we have learned elsewhere. Instead they harmonize with it. All who are baptized must do things that babies cannot do. Therefore, the command to be baptized does not include babies. When people baptize babies, they follow human authority, and they displease God.
Conclusion
Infant baptism is objectionable for several reasons. By examining the problems in infant baptism, we have also shown how people should be baptized properly.
First, infant baptism is an unauthorized change in God's pattern for baptism. God tells us whom to baptize. He tells the conditions people must meet in order to be baptized, but babies do not fit. To baptize babies is to act by human authority without divine authority.
Second, infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct so they should be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins!
A final objection to infant baptism is that it is almost always done by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. But the Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). A person must go down into the water and come up out of it (Acts 8:38,39; Mark 1:9,10). Bible baptism requires much water (John 3:23). Infant baptism does not fit God's pattern on any of these points. The evidence clearly shows that Bible baptism is an immersion, not a sprinkling or pouring.
What should a person do if his baptism was not done the way the Bible teaches? He should realize that he simply has not yet obeyed God, and he needs to obey God by being baptized according to the Bible (Acts 19:1-6). If this is your need, we urge you to find a faithful local church belonging to Christ and be baptized Scripturally today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
