Is the Lord’s Day the “Sabbath”?

Article “Is the Lord’s Day the Christian Sabbath?” by Luke Plant

Original post: https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/is-the-lords-day-the-christian-sabbath/

Most of this post was written a long time ago, but I thought it would be useful to have somewhere public that I can point people to for my answer to this question, so I’m finally publishing it.

At the outset, I need to say that this issue is one that I think Christians should not divide over. The view I present below is not the one I grew up with, but I have no particular ambition to convert people to my view — except that, with regard to those who have the duty to teach God’s word, it is important to do so properly, “rightly handling the word of truth”, preaching the full counsel of God with all His authority, but never giving human ideas that same authority. It is to people with those duties that the following is really directed. The tone of this article should be interpreted with that in mind — my concern is with those who are not rightly teaching scripture (while being aware that I have failed and probably continue to fail in this extremely demanding privilege in many ways).

Before going on — if you are worried about the length of this article, the last two thirds of it actually consists of an appendix containing quotations from the early church, and are not part of the main argument.

Definitions

For my definition of the concept of a “Christian Sabbath” or “Christian Sabbatarianism”, I will take this quotation from The Westminster Confession:

Chapter 21 VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

Principles

We need to ask if the above statement is biblically grounded or not.

First, a principle: in teaching people to obey God, it is a sin to add to the commands that God has given us. We are allowed to go no further than what the Bible itself requires in the demands we place on people, or we come under the condemnation of Jesus (Matthew 15:7-9).

We must teach only what the Bible teaches, and what can and must be deduced from it. As the Westminster Confession puts it so well:

Chapter 1. VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

In other words, we are not free to extrapolate, “read between the lines” or “join up the dots” in any way we please, but must teach all of what Scripture explicitly says and what necessarily flows from it, according to its own logic, and only that.

We note that Scripture may teach by precept, example or implication, but precept is stronger than example, as an example of behaviour found in the Bible could be good, bad, or incidental. Implication can be fairly strong or fairly weak, depending on the details.

Questions

I will respond to the claims of the Westminster Confession with a series of questions:

  1. Does the NT ever refer to the Lord’s Day as the Sabbath?No, it does not.This is already sufficient reason to not call the Lord’s Day the Sabbath. If the Bible doesn’t call it that, it may well have good reasons for not doing so, and we will only succeed in confusing ourselves and biasing our reading of Scripture when we use biblical terminology in unbiblical ways.To give an illustration:In charismatic and Pentecostal circles, it is quite common to use the phrase “waiting on the Lord” to mean a kind of meditative, “listening” prayer in which you wait for the Holy Spirit to lead your thoughts directly, and interpret that as the voice of God.One of the difficulties with this is that, in my view, it is taking a biblical phrase and using it in an unbiblical way — I think “waiting on/for the Lord” in the Bible is actually about trusting God. This produces a feedback loop that is difficult to escape from. Because of how the phrase is used in those circles, every time they read Psalm 130:5,6, Isaiah 40:31 or similar passages, it is firstly assumed that the Bible is talking about their practice of listening in prayer. Those texts then reinforce not just the legitimacy of the practice, but its importance.When asked for biblical support for their practice, they do point to these texts — despite the fact that the phrases they contain have been interpreted according to their usage of that terminology, rather than actually describing the practice in a clear way. It becomes very difficult for them to believe that listening in prayer is either unbiblical or not as important as they have thought — after all, they know for a fact that they’ve been encouraged to do that many times in God’s word, even if they can’t remember where.(I’m not saying here that God never leads us via our thoughts when praying, by the way, that’s another issue I’m not getting in to.)In the same way, if we call the Lord’s Day “the Sabbath”, every time we read the Ten Commandments or many other passages about the Sabbath, we equate “Sabbath” with “the Lord’s Day”, creating a feedback loop that makes it very difficult to even take the non-Sabbatarian view seriously — after all, we know for a fact that God has told us that it is a sin to work on the Lord’s Day, being unaware of the unbiblical interpretative jump our minds have made. I suspect that this is the primary reason that the Sabbatarian position retains a hold over many Christian circles.And, by the way, as far as I can tell from the records we have, in at least the first 4 centuries, while Christian teachers often mentioned “the Sabbath”, they never used that word to refer to the Lord’s Day — see Appendix.
  2. Does the NT ever prescriptively take Sabbath laws and apply them to the Lord’s day (e.g. command people not to work on the Lord’s Day)?No, it does not.
  3. Does the NT ever descriptively set out a pattern of Christians observing Sabbath regulations on the Lord’s day?No. We do find Christians worshipping God on the first day of the week. But they worshipped on other days too (Acts 2:46). Whether Christians are required to spend some time worshipping God on the Lord’s Day is a different question to whether the Lord’s Day is the Sabbath. We are certainly never told they avoided labour or recreation on the Lord’s Day, or gave the whole day over to the worship of God.In Acts 20:7, the disciples there apparently met late at night.Often it seems they met before dawn on Sunday:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as a god—PlinyMost likely, the unsociable hours of these meetings were due to the fact that they were working the rest of the time, since Sunday was an official day of work in the Roman Empire until Constantine.The following is an argument from silence, and is therefore weaker, but I think it has some strength to it:Had the early church been refusing to work on Sunday, this would have been scandalous, and a more than adequate justification for persecution (at least in the eyes of the persecutors). It seems fairly unlikely historically that if Christians had the practice of taking the whole of Sunday off, that there would be no record of it, especially given documents like Justin Martyr’s Apologies, where he defends Christians against the grievances that others had against them.

This leaves the case for Christian Sabbatarianism on very shaky ground, with neither precept nor example to support it.

However, we still want to answer the question “what should we do with the 4th commandment?”. This could potentially provide a case for a Christian Sabbath concept by way of some biblical logic. Answering this question requires looking at both the OT background to the command, and how the NT treats it.

Old Testament treatment of the Sabbath

We find:

  1. The Sabbath is not a creation ordinance, despite what some say. Adam was commanded to work, reproduce etc., but there is no command to rest every seven days. The account of God’s creation in six days and rest on the seventh is not made into any kind of pattern in the book of Genesis, and while Genesis 2:3 talks of God blessing the seventh day and making it holy, it doesn’t fill out what that means in terms of a requirement not to work.
  2. There is no record of anyone observing Sabbaths until we come to Moses. (See also quotes from Justyn Martyr and Tertullian below, who said that Abel, Enoch, Noah and Melchizedek did not observe Sabbaths).
  3. The creation-basis for the command in the law of Moses is not a strict copy, but an adaptation based on the pattern. God worked for 6 days, then had an eternal day of rest (there is no “evening and morning the seventh day”). This is then adapted into a weekly cycle with a commandment to cease from labour for the Jews. So we are primed for the idea that the creation principle of rest may be adapted in different ways in the New Covenant.
  4. The Jewish Sabbath is a special sign of God’s covenant with the Jews — see Ezekiel 20:11-12. Clearly God couldn’t have said this of moral laws e.g. the command not to murder could not have been called a “sign” between God and the Jews, since it was common to Jews and the rest of the world.

On this basis, it seems very unlikely that the Jewish Sabbath is part of the moral law that all the world must obey. The Westminster Confession does not have an adequate biblical basis for saying that God appointed one day in seven to be kept holy by all people “from the beginning of the world”.

New Testament treatment of the Sabbath

Does the NT ever speak directly on the issue of how laws about Sabbath or special day observance are to be handled by Christians? Thankfully, it does:

  1. Colossians 2:16-17Galatians 4:10Romans 14:5.These texts are clear, and do not require exegetical somersaults to understand, once Sabbatarian glasses have been removed:
    • The Sabbath is, like other OT ceremonies, a shadow that is fulfilled in Christ.
    • We are at liberty to observe special days if we want to, but not to require other people to do so.
    In the NT, there are no holy things or places or days, only a holy people.
  2. Hebrews 4:1-11.The Sabbath is fulfilled for Christians by the eternal rest of the new heavens and new earth. Christians enter that now in spiritual ways, by resting in Christ, and ceasing their attempts to gain acceptance by works.

Negatively, the council of Jerusalem is also deafening by its silence on the issue. It specifically discusses the points where Jewish law impinged upon Gentile consciences. Sabbath observance was not practised among Gentiles, so I think the silence of Acts 15 on this matter is rather difficult to explain if the apostles believed that Sabbath observance was necessary for Gentiles and had been moved to the Lord’s Day after Christ’s resurrection, as claimed by the Westminster Confession.

OT and NT point unambiguously in the same direction. Other texts that are sometimes quoted (“The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” etc.) simply don’t address the question (unless you have made the unbiblical equation of “the Sabbath” equals “the Lord’s Day”, in which case seeing these texts clearly will require a fair amount of un-thinking).

One text which is sometimes used to support the universality of the Sabbath is Mark 2:27, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. This argument depends firstly on translating ‘anthropos’ as ‘man’, and then understanding ‘man’ to mean ‘all mankind’. It is perfectly possible to translate ‘anthropos’ as ‘people’ (as per the NET translation) or understand it in that way, and the argument then disappears. If I said “The Highway Code was made for people, not people for the Highway Code”, I would not be implying that wherever there are people, there is the Highway Code, and it will always be that way, time without end. In fact I would more likely be implying the opposite — the Highway Code is an invention that serves human needs, and can be adjusted or abandoned if necessary. The question is then: which meaning is more appropriate for this text? Given the OT history, which gives no hint of Sabbath observance for all mankind, either by precept or example, with the Sabbath being introduced by Moses and understood as a specific sign of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel (as above), it seems far more appropriate to understand this text as meaning simply “the Sabbath was made for people” — and not as a statement of the universality of the Sabbath.

There remains one argument I know of in favour of Christian Sabbatarianism: the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, which are God’s eternal moral law, and therefore must continue.

First, in response, the Bible never states that the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal moral law. The division of the law into moral, civil and ceremonial, while useful, is not strictly biblical, and must always be subject to what the Bible actually says. The NT texts on the Sabbath make it clear that the Jewish form of the Sabbath (one day in seven rest) is ceremonial. We must not allow the systems that we have extracted from scripture (or think we have) to override plain exegesis. It is infinitely better to have holes, even gaping holes, in our systematic theology, than to handle the Bible in such a way that we override or ignore just one of God’s holy words.

The argument that the Sabbath is part of God’s eternal moral law reminds me of the proof that 2 is an odd number. It goes like this:

  1. Consider the prime numbers. They are, by definition, positive integers that are divisible only by 1 and themselves. The sequence starts: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, …As you’ll notice, they are all odd numbers — look at them: 3 is odd, 5 is odd, 7 is odd, 9 is odd. All the prime numbers are odd.– “Excuse me, what about 2? That looks even to me…”– We don’t talk about 2. (I’ll see you after class).As I was saying, all the prime numbers are odd.
  2. The number 2 is a prime number.
  3. Therefore, 2 is an odd number. QED.

The proof that the Sabbath is an eternal moral command looks the same:

  1. All the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal moral law.Look at them: “Do not murder” – a moral command that existed before Moses, and is repeated in the NT. And so it is with all of them – “You shall have no other Gods before me”, “Do not commit adultery” etc.– “Excuse me, what about the 4th commandment? It seems pretty clear that the Sabbath was given specially to the Jews as a covenant sign, and the NT tells us that we don’t have holy days any more because they are fulfilled in Christ…”– We don’t talk about the 4th commandment. And please don’t interrupt.As you can see, all of the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal moral law.
  2. The Sabbath law is part of the Ten Commandments
  3. Therefore the Sabbath is an eternal moral command. And we celebrate it on Sundays, obviously.

Even if we were to conclude the Sabbath is a moral command and must continue, we’re not free to make up how it should continue. The NT actually gives us no ground for saying the Jewish Sabbath has been moved to the Lord’s Day. We would be left saying that it continues just as it is in the OT (producing many difficulties which I won’t go into) — or, it continues and applies in the New Covenant age in the way described in Hebrews, that is, in a spiritual way as above (in other words, a long way round to the non-Sabbatarian position).

In fact, the NT is clear that the command is fulfilled in Christ just as other ceremonial commands are. We’re not left in the dark about how to understand it. If we attempt to put observance of the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath into a moral category, we produce an impossible situation when it comes treating people who fail to observe it. For matters of plain morality, we are required by scripture to judge people, to the extent of putting them out of the church and not even keeping company with them — “expel the wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5). When it comes to observing holy days, Romans 14 tells us that we must not judge each other, but rather accept one another (v1, 5, 13). To claim, as some do, that Romans 14 is talking about sacred days apart from the Lord’s Day is simply special pleading, as there is no basis for saying so. This is a simple reductio ad absurdum that shows we erred when making literal Sabbath day observance a NT obligation. Rather than it being logically inescapable that the Lord’s Day is to be observed as a Sabbath — which is the standard required for us to teach other people to so observe it — the reverse is actually the case.

Conclusion

To conclude the argument from Scripture:

The idea stated in the Westminster Confession that the Lord’s Day is to be the Sabbath from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the world cannot be found in Scripture, just as its statement about Sabbath observance “from the beginning of the world” is also insufficiently supported by the Bible. There are no statements whatsoever supporting the claim that the Sabbath must be observed on the Lord’s Day to this effect, either by precept, example or implication. If this idea comes from the Bible at all, it only does so by one possible extrapolation among several, and not by “good and necessary consequence”, which is the standard any teaching must pass before it can be taught from our pulpits. Further, it is an extrapolation that contradicts how the Bible itself handles the subject.

However:

The principle behind the need to set time aside to worship God can certainly apply to how we use Sunday (as well as other times in the week), especially if we have the freedom to use Sunday in a way that we choose. We also have the freedom as believers to “observe” the Lord’s day if we want to, whatever we mean by that — but not to put that requirement onto others (Romans 14:5-6). There is also the pattern that NT believers have handed on of meeting together on the Lord’s Day, and the commandment in Hebrews 10:25 to not forsake meeting together, which also mean that for most people, setting aside time to meet with God’s people on Sunday must be a high priority.

For myself, with my work situation meaning that I have the freedom to rest on a Sunday (when I’m not preaching), I’ve found it an enormously helpful practice, and one that I commend to everyone. In fact, I would be suspicious of myself and my walk with God if I was preferring to do other things on the Lord’s Day — I’ve got the other days of the week when I can work. My practice has changed relatively little since I’ve come to a non-Sabbatarian position. But making this a binding rule on others, or even on myself, is not something that Scripture allows me to do.

There is also the principle of “rest”, which is big topic and it’s not my purpose to look at it in this post. While I couldn’t agree with every word of it, I found Tim Keller’s sermon on Work and Rest to be really helpful.

Appendix – Early church

While it is Scripture and Scripture alone that settles the matter, the Early Church is also of interest. To diagnose our own blind spots it is often helpful to look to what the Church has historically believed. The earlier you go, the less likely it is, in general, that waters are muddied by traditions of men that have been added.

I have not been able to find any evidence of Christian Sabbatarianism at all in the first two centuries. Many sources suggest some Christians continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath (i.e. Saturday) for centuries, but I haven’t yet found an early source for that.

In general, they describe the practice of Christians meeting together on the Lord’s Day as being pretty much universal, but without making it a Sabbath day.

Origen in 220 AD is the first to say that the Lord’s Day should be observed as a day of rest, but he seems to be out of line with most people of his time, who made no such rules.

Very clear quotes on the subject from early Christians, including early believers like Justyn Martyr, and authorities like Tertullian and Augustine etc. can be found at http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm and are copied below.

They are quite explicit about Christians not observing the Sabbath, and not being required to — and in fact you are overthrowing the gospel if you do (Chrysostom)! Where they talk about Christians “observing” the Lord’s Day (which starts from about 3rd/4th century), it is as a contrast to observing the Sabbath, the main requirement being that Christians be joyful and that they meet together, and not that they refrain from any activity — which is called Jewish superstition and idleness.

Put together, they present overwhelming evidence that there is not a hint of a “Christian Sabbath” tradition that was passed down from the apostles.

Justin Martyr is worth looking at in some detail:

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (circa 130 – 150 AD)

This is a report of a long debate with some Jews, in which the subject of Sabbath and circumcision comes up several times. It’s extremely clear that Justin Martyr did not consider Christians to be bound to observe the Sabbath or sabbath days, and had an understanding of the Sabbath exactly in line with what I have written above, often with the same proof texts.

Chapter X

And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus:—

“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?

Trypho:

But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments.

Chapter XII

Justin Martyr:

I also adduced another passage in which Isaiah exclaims: “ ‘Hear My words, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people: nations which know not Thee shall call on Thee; peoples who know not Thee shall escape to Thee, because of thy God, the Holy One of Israel; for He has glorified Thee.’ This same law you have despised, and His new holy covenant you have slighted; and now you neither receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds. ‘For your ears are closed, your eyes are blinded, and the heart is hardened,’ Jeremiah has cried; yet not even then do you listen. The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure.

Chapter XVIII

“For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements. 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. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, —I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?

Chapter XIX

Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed; nay, you sacrificed your children to demons. And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, ‘That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you.’

Chapter XXI

“Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers,—as He declares that for the sake of the nations, lest His name be profaned among them, therefore He permitted some of you to remain alive,—these words of His can prove to you: they are narrated by Ezekiel thus: ‘I am the Lord your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My judgements, and take no part in the customs of Egypt; and hallow My Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Notwithstanding ye rebelled against Me, and your children walked not in My statutes, neither kept My judgements to do them: which if a man do, he shall live in them. But they polluted My Sabbaths. And I said that I would pour out My fury upon them in the wilderness, to accomplish My anger upon them; yet I did it not; that My name might not be altogether profaned in the sight of the heathen. I led them out before their eyes, and I lifted up Mine hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they had not executed My judgements, but had despised My statutes, and polluted My Sabbaths, and their eyes were after the devices of their fathers. Wherefore I gave them also statutes which were not good, and judgements whereby they shall not live. And I shall pollute them in their own gifts, that I may destroy all that openeth the womb, when I pass through them.’

Mathetes: Epistle to Diognetus

I also came across this work, dating from AD 130 to the end of the century, which is relevant for its general tenor:

Chapter IV.—The other observances of the Jews.

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,—I do not think that you require to learn anything from me.

Chapter V.—The manners of the Christians.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers.

Other Early Church and Church Fathers writings

The following are taken verbatim (including comments) from http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm . I have checked the accuracy of some, but not most of them.

  • 90AD DIDACHE: “Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day: 1. But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.” (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)
  • 100 AD BARNABAS “We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD 15:6-8).
  • 100 AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)
  • 110AD Pliny: “they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to (do) any wicked deeds, never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of good food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
  • 150AD EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES.- I [Christ] have come into being on the eighth day which is the day of the Lord. (18)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: “He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.”. (Justin, Dialogue 41:4)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: …those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, page 207)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinion, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances… For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 206)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (First apology of Justin, Weekly Worship of the Christians, Ch 68)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses… And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, “That you may know that I am God who redeemed you.” (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: There is no other thing for which you blame us, my friends, is there than this? That we do not live according to the Law, nor, are we circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers, nor do we observe the Sabbath as you do. (Dialogue with Trypho 10:1. In verse 3 the Jew Trypho acknowledges that Christians ‘do not keep the Sabbath.’)
  • 150AD JUSTIN: We are always together with one another. And for all the things with which we are supplied we bless the Maker of all through his Son Jesus Christ and through his Holy Spirit. And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or a rural district. [There follows an account of a Christian worship service, which is quoted in VII.2.] We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn’s day, and on the day after (which is the day of the Sun the appeared to his apostles and taught his disciples these things. (Apology, 1, 67:1-3, 7; First Apology, 145 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , Vol. 1, pg. 186)
  • 155 AD Justin Martyr “[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you–namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us–I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you [Jews] to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21).
  • 180AD ACTS OF PETER.- Paul had often contended with the Jewish teachers and had confuted them, saying ‘it is Christ on whom your fathers laid hands. He abolished their Sabbath and fasts and festivals and circumcision.’ (1: I)-2
  • 190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: (in commenting on each of the Ten Commandments and their Christian meaning:) The seventh day is proclaimed a day of rest, preparing by abstention from evil for the Primal day, our true rest. (Ibid. VII. xvi. 138.1)
  • 190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: He does the commandment according to the Gospel and keeps the Lord’s day, whenever he puts away an evil mind . . . glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself. (Ibid. Vii.xii.76.4)
  • 190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Plato prophetically speaks of the Lord’s day in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words: ‘And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they must go on.” (Miscellanies V.xiv.106.2)
  • 200AD BARDESANES: Wherever we are, we are all called after the one name of Christ Christians. On one day, the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together (On Fate)
  • 200AD TERTULLIAN: “We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath” (Tertullian’s Apology, Ch 16)
  • 200AD TERTULLIAN: It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary. (An Answer to the Jews 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 155)
  • 200AD TERTULLIAN: Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of threat of death, teach us that in earliest times righteous men kept Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and so were made friends of God. .. …Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended… Noah also, uncircumcised – yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath – God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world… Melchizedek also, “the priest of most high God,” uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God. (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153)
  • 200AD TERTULLIAN: Others . . . suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is well-known that we regard Sunday as a day of joy. (To the Nations 1: 133)
  • 200AD TERTULLIAN: To us Sabbaths are foreign. (On Idolatry, 14:6)
  • 220AD ORIGEN “On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done. If then, you abstain from all the works of this world and keep yourselves free for spiritual things, go to church, listen to the readings and divine homilies, meditate on heavenly things. (Homil. 23 in Numeros 4, PG 12:749)
  • 220 AD Origen “Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection” (Commentary on John 2:28).
  • 225 AD The Didascalia “The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Didascalia 2).
  • 250AD CYPRIAN: The eight day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s Day.” (Epistle 58, Sec 4)
  • 250 AD IGNATIUS: “If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master-how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me; ” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; ” how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, “He will come and save us.” Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, “whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,” who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men’s possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ! (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter IX)
  • 250AD IGNATIUS: “On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, chapter 9)
  • 250AD IGNATIUS: If any one fasts on the Lord’s Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, chapter 8)
  • 250AD IGNATIUS: “This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under Him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged concerning it.” (Ignatius, Fragments)
  • 300 AD Victorinus “The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished” (The Creation of the World).
  • 300AD EUSEBIUS: “They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath neither do we; … because such things as these do not belong to Christians” (Ecc. Hist., Book 1, Ch. 4)
  • 300AD EUSEBIUS: [The Ebionites] were accustomed to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish customs but on the Lord’s days to celebrate the same practices as we in remembrance of the resurrection of the Savior. (Church History Ill.xxvii.5)
  • 300 AD Eusebius of Caesarea “They [the pre- Mosaic saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things” (Church History 1:4:8).
  • 300 AD Eusebius of Caesarea “The day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic Law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality” (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186).
  • 345 AD Athanasius “The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation” (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3).
  • 350 AD APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord’s house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 2)
  • 350 AD APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: For if the Gentiles every day, when they arise from sleep, run to their idols to worship them, and before all their work and all their labors do first of all pray to them, and in their feasts and in their solemnities do not keep away, but attend upon them; and not only those upon the place, but those living far distant do the same; and in their public shows all come together, as into a synagogue: in the same manner those which are vainly called Jews, when they have worked six days, on the seventh day rest, and come together in their synagogue, never leaving or neglecting either rest from labor or assembling together… If, therefore, those who are not saved frequently assemble together for such purposes as do not profit them, what apology wilt thou make to the Lord God who forsakes his Church, not imitating so much as the heathen, but by such, thy absence grows slothful, or turns apostate. or acts wickedness? To whom the Lord says to Jeremiah, “Ye have not kept My ordinances; nay, you have not walked according to the ordinance of the heathen and you have in a manner exceeded them… How, therefore, will any one make his apology who has despised or absented himself from the church of God? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 2)
  • 350 AD APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: Do you therefore fast, and ask your petitions of God. We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath-day excepting one, and every Lord’s day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 5)
  • 350 AD APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS “Which Days of the Week We are to Fast, and Which Not, and for What Reasons: But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the Preparation, because on the fourth day the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray Him for money; and you must fast on the day of the Preparation, because on that day the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord’s burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His own creatures.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 7)
  • 350 AD APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS “How We Ought to Assemble Together, and to Celebrate the Festival Day of Our Saviour’s Resurrection. On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church: “In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the heathen.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 7)
  • 350 AD Cyril of Jerusalem “Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean” (Catechetical Lectures 4:37).
  • 360 AD Council of Laodicea “Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (canon 29).
  • 387 AD John Chrysostom “You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the Law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?” (Homilies on Galatians 2:17).
  • 387 AD John Chrysostom “The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the Law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn that the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath” (Homilies on Philippians 10).
  • 412 AD Augustine “Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these Ten Commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the Law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished” (The Spirit and the Letter 24).
  • 597 AD Gregory I “It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the Law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ (Jer. 17:24) could be held to as long as it was lawful for the Law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the Law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ (Gal. 5:2)” (Letters 13:1).

Youth – Baptism and Church Membership

Article: Youth and Church Membership—Or, Stop Baptizing Children into the Ether by Alex Duke, editorial manager of 9Marks. He lives in Louisville, Kentucky, where he also works at Third Avenue Baptist Church as the Director of Youth Ministry and Ecclesiological Training.

So as to begin on the surest footing, allow me to list all the verses that directly address the topic of young people (that is, under 18 years old) and church membership:

That’s right. There are none. Never does the Lord tell us: this is how the new covenant people of God ought to embrace children into its number. (As I say this, paedobaptists grouse and facepalm.)

PRINCIPLED PRUDENCE

This conversation ought to happen in the realm of prudence and wisdom. This isn’t “Thus sayeth the Lord”; it’s “because the Lord hath sayeth thus about this and this and this, we’re inclined to believe this is the best way forward on that.” But the best prudential decisions are informed by principles; the best wisdom considers the law.

So what principles inform our understanding of youth and church membership? I can think of a few.

1. God saves young people.

If you were to take a straw poll at church this Sunday and ask your people a simple question—“How many of you were saved before your 18th birthday?”—it’s safe to say that many if not most people would raise their hands. Why? Because God saves young people. He saves 17-year-olds whose friends invite them to youth group. He saves 5-year-olds who show up at VBS because their unsaved parent simply needed a break and some free child care. God saves young people.

2. Church membership is only for those whom God has saved.

Our local churches—that is, our gatherings of the new covenant people of God; that is, our embassies of true Israel, now reconstituted under the headship of the risen and reigning Christ, filled by Spirit-filled priests—are not mixed bodies by design. National Israel followed a different story, of course: she was mixed by design. But not true Israel. In the new covenant age, God wanted to make crystal clear that new hearts aren’t given at the end of a

birth canal, but at the beginning of a life of faith.

3. When discerning an individual’s salvation, we look for a credible profession of faith.

When discerning whether or not someone should be recommended for membership—regardless of their age—we ought to listen for a clear understanding of the gospel, a clear sense that one has indeed been converted from death to life (even if they can’t pinpoint the day, month, or even the year), and a clear change in lifestyle and desires. If any of those three are absent, you should at least be willing to pause and consider whether or not the person in front of you has indeed been born again.

Not everyone who asks “What must I do to be saved?” really wants to be saved. Don’t believe me? Just consider the rich young ruler whose credible profession dissolved in an instant when Jesus asked him a single question about his life (Mark 10:17–22).

At least for credobaptists, these three principles are relatively uncontroversial. Unfortunately, I fear this fourth one has been largely jettisoned by many if not most credobaptist churches.

4. Baptism almost always accompanies church membership.

In 2002, I was baptized at a church but not into a church. I stood in the baptismal as a free-agent Christian, I went down into the water as a free-agent Christian, and I came up out of the water as a free-agent Christian. Never once did it occur to me—or, apparently, to anyone else—that baptism not only serves as an outward sign of an inward reality, but also as an outward introduction into a spiritual institution: the local church. I knew that baptism began my so-called Christian life, but I had no idea that my Christian life ought to be shaped around my submission to a local church.

Simply put, church membership should almost always accompany baptism. This is the nearly uniform witness of the New Testament, with the only exception that I can think of coming from Acts 8 when Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. But that exception proves the rule because it’s a baptism that occurs in a region and among a people where no church yet exists.

When we don’t keep baptism and membership close together, we turn membership into something unbiblical. So, unless you’re doing parachurch ministry among some remote tribe, baptism should accompany church membership.

That I was baptized without any connection to a church could only happen in a world that diminishes the role of the local church in a Christian’s life and discipleship. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.

ONE OPTION OFF THE TABLE

Therefore, a church should not baptize young people apart from church membership. To do so is unbiblical, unhelpful, and unloving.

It’s unbiblical because the Bible never envisions baptized Christians living apart from membership in a local church (except on the missionary frontier, as with the Ethiopian eunuch).

It’s unhelpful because when young people begin to stray, their youth pastors are given a toolbelt with valuable tools already taken out. They can’t push a young person toward his elders; he has no elders. They can’t lay out the process of church discipline that lies before him should he continue on a particular path; he has no church who can discipline him, nor has he ever agreed to any kind of covenant that, upon breaching, would warrant his knowing removal.

And finally, it’s unloving because it hardwires in an individualistic understanding of the Christian life. For example, I was baptized at 12 and only about a decade later did I learn how Jesus intends for my discipleship to be shaped by and connected to a local church—under the authority of godly leaders, in fellowship with other saints.

That’s ten years where I was free to gallivant anywhere I wanted with no one in particular tasked before God to look out for me. Thankfully, God preserved me, but I think of my brother, or I think of literally dozens of friends whose baptism into the ether proved to be just that, the first step on a journey to nowhere. Their Christian life has dissolved, their Christian profession is now silent, and whatever tenuous connection to the local church their baptism established has been severed by a decade and a half of inattention. If a baptized person gets lost in a forest and no one is there to see it, does it really make a difference? Jesus seems to say it should (John 10:1–21).

Sadly, thousands of kids will face the same fate, and the churches they’re connected to have made it so.

They’ve been affirmed in their faith as a young person through baptism. Maybe they were 7-years-old; maybe they were 17. The moment accompanied such joy; it occasioned both a beginning and an ending, the old being washed away and the new finally coming.

But baptism apart from membership has led these young Christians through a doorway to nowhere.

It has ushered them into a place that looks like a beautiful home—a space where they can grow up and learn and explore. But it’s a façade. You see, when we baptize any new Christian, we tell them they’re family, that they can move in here with us, that they can plop down on the couch and pick out a bedroom and fill the refrigerator with their favorite food. After all, they’re going to be here a while. They’re home. But when we baptize someone apart from membership, apart from mutual commitment, we’re not inviting them into a home, but to an open house, 10am–2pm every Sunday. The furniture is staged, no one actually sleeps in these beds, and the appliances don’t even work. It’s all for show.

Churches and pastors and youth groups who make of practice of doing this, I encourage you to reconsider. It’s an unbiblical practice that bears bad fruit. Consider instead what might be helpful for that young person in five or 10 years. Consider how double-minded it is to affirm someone has been born again by God’s Spirit, but to keep them formally shut out of God’s people. Consider how—though I know it seems unthinkable right now, in a moment of such joy—you will one day forget about them, and they will forget about you, and all this would have stood for nothing.

THREE POTENTIAL APPROACHES

So, don’t baptize kids into the ether. That’s not a viable option. As I see it, however, there are at least three ways to approach this question without compromising any of the aforementioned principles. I’ll discuss these below, offering my own assessment as to how they adhere to biblical wisdom and best practices.

Approach #1: Except in unusual circumstances, a church will not accept any youth into membership because they will not baptize them.

A church like Capitol Hill Baptist would agree with the horror story I described above and, so as to avoid complicity in perpetuating that story to future generations, they will generally not baptize a young person who is still under the authority of their Christian parents. I think this practice properly underscores the seriousness with which any person—regardless of age—should take their profession of faith. See CHBC’s statement on children and baptism here.

An added bonus is that it clarifies that baptism is not a familial rite of passage. Baptism means a church has embraced an individual and an individual has submitted him- or herself to an institution other than their family.

The whirring engine behind this approach is that it’s simply hard to discern the credibility of a Christian child’s profession of faith. It’s easy to mistake obedience for regeneration.

Now, in unusual circumstances, a church like CHBC will show more flexibility: perhaps a neighborhood kid from a Muslim family starts going to church on his own and believes in Jesus; perhaps a 15-year-old has gone to public school his whole life and has a flourishing evangelistic ministry. In these made-up situations, the evidence would pile high enough so as to at least consider that young person a candidate for baptism and membership.

This is not my own view, but I’m sympathetic to this practice because it correctly identifies a problem: the scourge of nominal young people that scores of churches baptize year after year after year with no intention of ever bringing those individuals up for church discipline should their lives begin to undermine their profession of faith. In these cases, the problem isn’t the presence of baptism, but the absence of meaningful church membership and church discipline.

Sidenote: If you’re at a church that doesn’t practice church discipline at all, then you should follow this road if only because it keeps you from future disobedience.

Approach #2: A church will baptize a young person into membership-with-an-asterisk.

I’m currently the youth pastor of a church—North Shore Baptist Church in Queens, NY—that takes this second route. It’s a practice I inherited, and it works like this: We’ll baptize a young person into “provisional membership”—which means they can attend members’ meetings, serve in various capacities, receive free biblical counseling, and even be disciplined should they begin to live in unrepentant sin.

In almost every respect, they are members of NSBC except they can’t vote at our meetings, and they might be asked to leave should the topic be deemed (either by their parents or us as elders) too mature for them.

This approach acknowledges reality: they’re children, though most if not all are juniors or seniors in high school. But it also treats them in many respects as equals. It raises our expectations for them even as we’ve raised our own commitment to them—not just through their graduation from youth group but through the rest of their lives should the Lord tarry and should they stay nearby.

Approach #3: A church will baptize a young person into full voting membership.

This is basically the same as above, but with any restrictions removed. Sure, a parent may choose to withhold their child from a particular conversation, but it would not be required of them.

For what it’s worth, I’m partial to this choice because it’s cleanest. “Provisional membership” is an extrabiblical category. If a young person has been born again by God the Holy Spirit; if they are being renewed day by day into the image of Christ; if the Holy Spirit is producing in them such fruit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, then I’m happy for them to cast their vote on questions of membership, leadership, doctrine, and all the rest. Wielding the keys of the kingdom is a privilege reserved not for adults, but for those who have received the Lord Jesus, those who have believed in his name and in so doing have been given the right to become children of God.

CONCLUSION

Lest I be scolded by my higher-ups, I’m not offering the “9Marks view” on this topic, if there is one—only my own.

No matter which of the three options above you choose, you should help young people understand that the Lord’s Supper belongs to members of the church (or members of other churches in attendance). Like baptism and membership, the Supper is a sign that we belong to the body (1 Cor. 10:17). And so it makes no sense to give someone the Supper but not baptism, as parents sometimes do with their children. We must keep these three things tied together—membership, baptism, and the Supper. To divide them changes their meaning into something unbiblical.

It’s true the Bible never directly addresses the topic of how we ought to introduce young people into the membership of our churches. But it does offer principles about salvation and processes of membership that are non-negotiable and therefore must inform and shape our practice.

Let The Fathers Be The Fathers

Dr. James White and Pastor Jeff Durbin discuss the Early Church Fathers:

Transcript:

James White: They (Roman Catholic Apologists) wanna say, we aren’t really trying to retrieve the early church, and in a sense, they’re correct, because I don’t wanna retrieve the mess at Corinth. Okay. Which continued in Corinth, as we see in First Clement. What I want is the apostolic witness.

Jeff Durbin: Right.

JW: That is the issue. And in a sense, Rome agrees with that, they just simply say that the apostolic witness is not limited to Scripture. You have sacred tradition as the overarching banner. You have the written element of that and you have the oral element of that. And that’s where the issue is.

There’s this oral element and our argument is, you simply cannot demonstrate in any way, shape or form, that what you have defined on the basis of tradition was actually delivered by the Apostles to the first generation of Christians. It’s just not possible. And so that’s where, that’s where everything becomes discombobulated between the two.

But the point is that the Reformation, they were not saying, we’re gonna to start something new, you’ve messed things up so badly, we’re gonna start something new. They weren’t saying that.

They were saying these accretions, these editions of taking place over time where you get someone trying to do something good but they go off track and then that gets built upon by the next person, built upon by next person. And pretty soon you’re in the next County as far as – away from apostolic truth is concerned.

And so there has to be a mechanism of correcting that kind of thing. And once you make the church, the infallible interpreter of both the Bible and tradition, there’s no way of correcting the church any longer because the church now becomes itself infallible.

But this is very, very important because I don’t know about how many you’ve talked to, but I just have lost count of how many people I have talked to and said, “Well, once I started reading early Church Fathers, that’s when I found out I need to become a Catholic because they were Catholics like me, and all the rest of this stuff.” And I’m like, “What exactly were you reading? What exactly were you listening to? What do you do about this?” And I just point out one place and they’re so uncomfortable when they encounter just how variegated and how wide the opinions were.

And I’m like, okay, so if this becomes your authority, if this becomes the lens through which you read Scripture, no wonder you’re gonna deny the perspicuity of Scripture.

JD: Where the Roman Catholics and Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Reformed need to sort of mutually have a certain feeling of frustration with the Fathers. I feel it, and I’ve seen it with Roman Catholics I’ve engaged with, frustration they will have. Where you’ll look at a person and we’ve already said this, but you go, “That’s amazing. That sounds just like Jesus. It sounds just like Paul.” And then he walks to next page – faceplant, “You’re like, that’s frustrating.” And the Roman Catholic has to, if they have integrity, if they have honesty, they have to say they feel the same frustration that these fallible uninspired men, yeah. They say the stuff that I like…

JW: But…

JD: … And then they faceplant.

JW: But dogmatically, they have to believe Satis Cognitum said a long time ago, that the teachings on the papacy are the constant ancient faith of the church. They’ve been told, this is what we’ve taught all along. It’s not and that’s why I’ve said and I think I said this…

JD: And it could be demonstrated that it’s not.

JW: And I said this, I think I said this on my program yesterday. I said, I have for years said show me a single Bishop at the Council of Nicaea, first ecumenical council, an important topic, Nicene Creed (all the rest of that stuff)… show me a single Bishop at the Nicene Council that believed what a modern Roman Catholic has to believe ‘De fide’ by faith as in dogma. And they can’t, because there’s nobody there that believed what a modern Roman Catholic has to believe.

Now there were variances even amongst them, but the point is that the men who gave us the Nicene Creed did not believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility – if they believed in Papal infallibility, why were they even getting together? It doesn’t make any sense. And the whole idea that, well, the Nicene Council could only have been accepted if the Pope approved it, that’s rubbish. That is pure anachronism. So they have to massage the data. And that’s why I’ve said, hey when I teach Church history, I can let the early Church Fathers be the early Church Fathers.

JD: Just be honest about it.

JW: Just, just be who they were. I don’t have a system saying to me, you need to make them all into your mirror images back then or your entire system is actually false.

JD: That’s the point. Having the integrity to say, ‘they’re frustrating.’ An honest Roman Catholic in an honest Reformed person should say that. There, it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating coz there’s moments of great glory and moments of great..

JW: Right.

JD: Big face-plants.

The Bible Created the Church

It is not the church that gave us our Bible, rather it is our Bible the gave us the church. When the church made a list of the inspired Scriptures, these were already acknowledged to be so in the Christian community. The Church did not stand over the Scripture in authority but submitted to them, using the Latin phrase “Recipimus” meaning “We Receive.” That is vital to understand. The Scriptures are self authenticating, having their source in God. The church merely recognized and received the word of God. God created the world by His word and creates Christians the same way – “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” (1 Peter 1:23)

– John Samson

Compromise Positions

An article by Ken Ham:

There are many different, what I call “compromise positions,” on Genesis such as theistic evolution, progressive creation, gap theory, day age theory, and many others. They actually all have one thing in common: trying to fit the supposed millions/billions of years into Scripture. Let’s look at one of these positions that has been fairly prevalent, progressive creation.

This position (popularized by Dr. Hugh Ross) allowed Christians to use the term “creationist” but still gave them supposed academic respectability in the eyes of the world by rejecting six literal days of creation and maintaining billions of years.

In summary, progressive creation teaches:

The big-bang origin of the universe occurred about 13–15 billion years ago.

The days of creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.

Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.

The record of nature (as interpreted by man) is just as reliable as the Word of God.

Death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam and Eve.

Manlike creatures that looked and behaved much like us (and painted on cave walls) existed before Adam and Eve but did not have a spirit that was made in the image of God, and thus had no hope of salvation.

The Genesis flood was a local event.

The big bang origin of the universe

Progressive creationists claim that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 represent long periods of time and that day three of creation week lasted more than three billion years! This assertion is made in order to allow for the billions of years that evolutionists claim are represented in the rock layers of earth. This position, however, has problems, both biblically and scientifically.

The text of Genesis 1 clearly states that God supernaturally created all that is in six actual days. If we are prepared to let the words of the text speak to us in accord with the context and their normal definitions, without influence from outside ideas, then the word for “day” in Genesis 1 obviously means an ordinary day of about 24 hours. It is qualified by a number, the phrase “evening and morning,” and for day one, the words “light and darkness.”

As their name indicates, progressive creationists believe that God progressively created species on earth over billions of years, with new species replacing extinct ones, starting with simple organisms and culminating in the creation of Adam and Eve. They accept the evolutionary order for the development of life on earth, even though this contradicts the order given in the Genesis account of creation. Evolutionary belief holds that the first life forms were marine organisms, while the Bible says that God created land plants first. Reptiles are supposed to have predated birds, while Genesis says that birds came first. Evolutionists believe that land mammals came before whales, while the Bible teaches that God created whales first.

Progressive creationists have stated that nature is “just as perfect” as the Bible and call nature the “sixty-seventh book” of the Bible.

Now God tells us in Romans 8:22 that “the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs” because of sin. And not only was the universe cursed, but man himself has been affected by the fall. So how can sinful, fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence (nature) is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God? It can’t.

Christians should build their thinking on the Bible, not on fallible interpretations of scientific observations about the past.

Progressive creationists believe the fossil record was formed from the millions of animals that lived and died before Adam and Eve were created. They accept the idea that there was death, bloodshed, and disease (including cancer) before sin, which goes directly against the teaching of the Bible and dishonors the character of God.

But God created a perfect world at the beginning. When he was finished, God stated that his creation was “very good.” The Bible makes it clear that man and all the animals were vegetarians before the fall (Genesis 1:29-30). Plants were given to them for food (plants do not have a nephesh [life spirit] as man and animals do and thus eating them would not constitute “death” in the biblical sense).

Concerning the entrance of sin into the world, progressive creationist Dr. Ross writes, “The groaning of creation in anticipation of release from sin has lasted fifteen billion years and affected a hundred billion trillion stars.”

The Bible,however, teaches something quite different. In the context of human death, the apostle Paul states, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). It is clear that there was no sin in the world before Adam sinned, and thus no death.

Since evolutionary radiometric dating methods have dated certain humanlike fossils as older than Ross’s date for modern humans (approx. 40,000 years), he and other progressive creationists insist that these are fossils of pre-Adamic creatures that had no spirit, and thus no salvation.

Progressive creationists accept and defend evolutionary dating methods, so they must redefine all evidence of humans (descendants of Noah) if they are given evolutionary dates of more than about 40,000 years (e.g., the Neanderthal cave sites) as related to spiritless “hominids,” which the Bible does not mention. However, these same methods have been used to “date” the Australian Aborigines back at least 60,000 years (some have claimed much older) and fossils of “anatomically modern humans” to over 100,000 years. By Ross’s reasoning, none of these (including the Australian Aborigines) could be descendants of Adam and Eve and so wouldn’t have souls. However, Acts 17:26 says, “And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings”. All people who have lived on earth are descendants of Adam.

In addition, the fossil record cannot, by its very nature, conclusively reveal if a creature had a spirit or not, since spirits are not fossilized. But there is clear evidence that creatures, which progressive creationists place before Adam, had art and clever technology and that they buried their dead in a way that many of Adam’s descendants did. They were fully human and actually descendants of Adam, and they lived only a few thousand years ago.

Progressive creationists will say they believe in a “universal” or “worldwide” flood, but in reality they do not believe that the flood covered the whole earth. They believe in a local flood. They argue that the text of Genesis 7 doesn’t really say that the flood covered the whole earth. But read it for yourself and you will find the language overwhelmingly speaks of a flood covering the entire earth and everything on it.

Now it is true that whether one believes in six literal days does not ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the “big picture.” In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked and Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t take the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of it in any area? Because the Church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world (such as billions of years) to reinterpret the Bible, it is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect “holy book,” not intended to be taken seriously.

Beware of compromise positions that attempt to fit man’s evolutionary/millions of years beliefs into the Bible.

Can You Love Theistic Evolutionists?

An article by Ken Ham:

I have been traveling around the world and speaking on creation-apologetics for over 40 years. I’ve also been on many media interviews and radio talk shows during that time. I’ve met thousands of people. You could imagine that during all this time I have been asked a lot of questions relating to what I teach concerning Genesis chapters 1-11, the authority of Scripture, and the gospel. Surely by now you would think I’ve heard every question possible. But no, I think almost every week I’ll hear a question I haven’t been asked before.

During one of my trips to Australia, a reporter with a Christian media outlet had some different questions for me. I think you’ll be very interested in these questions and how I did my best to answer them. Often, after answering certain questions, I said to myself, “I need to remember how I answered that for next time!”

I always pray for wisdom and ask the Lord to help me answer new questions, and I do believe he also helps me recall things I’ve heard or read.

I’ve been in apologetics ministry for more than 40 years. My first creation-apologetics talk was in 1975. Along the way, I’ve had so many media interviews, I can’t remember most of them—TV broadcasts, radio programs, and newspaper and magazine interviews across the globe!

In a sense, I have learned to deal with being thrown to the wolves in this Answers in Genesis ministry. I’ve had to learn how to answer the most-asked questions about Genesis, creation, evolution, Noah’s flood, moral issues, the gospel, biblical authority, and so forth and do it quickly. And we hear many of those questions over and over again. That’s why we complied the 5 Answers Books to answer these most asked questions.

Actually, being out of the office and teaching in churches and colleges and interacting with Christian and secular media certainly hones our ability to answer new and sometimes difficult questions.

Over the years, every time I hear a question that I don’t know the answer to, I follow up with research, sometimes meeting with our resident scientists/theologians at AiG. We discuss the topic to ensure I can answer the question even better next time.

But let’s get to the interview I had with a reporter for a Christian media group in Australia.

The media outlet heard I was speaking at a conference in Sydney and contacted the church to ask if a reporter could talk to me. The reporter called me a couple of days later, and I spent nearly an hour on the phone with her. I wasn’t able to record the conversation, but I took careful notes and compiled them to the best of my ability.

I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t take long for her to ask a question about whether I believe someone has to believe in six literal days and a young earth to be a Christian. I emphatically stated that salvation is not conditional on the age of the earth or the six literal days, but on faith in Christ. I explained why it’s really a biblical authority issue, and I gave her many examples of how incompatible millions of years is with Genesis.

But then she asked a question that I must admit I had never been asked before, “Can you love theistic evolutionists?”

I told her I had recently spoken at a secular university (the University of Central Oklahoma) with many of the LGBTQ group from the university present. I told the crowd that as a Christian, I didn’t hate them, because I’m a Christian. And as Jesus tells us, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. However, I told the audience that I disagreed with the LGBTQ worldview—but that should never be interpreted as hate. I then said to the reporter, “I can love LGBTQ people, and I can love theistic evolutionists.”

Sensing why the reporter might be asking the question, I added that because I speak boldly about what I believe, sometimes people will falsely interpret my beliefs as hate. I often find that those who don’t take AiG’s stand on Genesis will demand we agree that people can have different views. I told the reporter that Christians can have different views, but I’ll tell them why I believe those views are wrong—and how they undermine biblical authority! Sometimes people get angry when I respond like this, and they may even, ironically, show hate toward me! They want me to say their position is a valid one. But I can’t do if I do not believe it!

I explained to the reporter why such matters are biblical authority issues. In detail, I pointed out that adding man’s ideas to Scripture in Genesis is undermining the authority of the Word of God—that it undermines all Christian doctrine, even the gospel.

The reporter asked me many other questions, and she got to the topic of climate change. Now, I would say that this was the only time during the interview when I believe things became somewhat contentious with this Christian reporter. (Climate change can be an emotional topic.)

First, I told her there’s been climate change ever since the flood. I said I didn’t deny climate change, but the details as to why it’s happening and how serious it is (or isn’t) were matters that needed to be discussed. I referred to one of the articles in our Answers magazine where a scientist shows that there have been warming and cooling periods in the past and that our current (quite small) warming trend could be a normal fluctuation.

I further explained that we don’t have enough data to know for sure what has really been occurring. I added that scientists know the sun’s activity has a significant effect on climate change and that the main greenhouse gas is not actually carbon dioxide but water vapor.

Then it became a bit tense. I said that if you ask most people who are climate change alarmists (including most young people) to explain the data and give the facts behind what they’re claiming, most have no clue. They just regurgitate what they’ve heard.

She then said something to the effect that she didn’t need to do that. The reporter said that she could rely on the experts who have done the research. I replied that this is not the correct approach and that as Christians, we all need to search things out and be prepared to give reasons (1 Peter 3:15) for what we believe.

I told her my father wanted his kids to know why we believed what we did—and wanted us to be able to defend our beliefs. She then essentially accused me of refusing to accept what the majority of scientists are saying: that man-made climate change is a big problem.

I replied by saying that the majority of scientists say there’s no God and that life arose by naturalistic evolution. Should we then say we have to reject God because the majority of scientists say so? I emphasized that we are obligated as Christians to check things out.

I also explained that after the Flood, God told Noah, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

She responded with, “Are you saying we should do nothing then?” Well, of course I wasn’t saying that. I responded that God gave man dominion over the environment, not the environment over man, and that Christians should have a biblically based worldview in regard to environmental issues. We should responsibly use the creation for man’s good and God’s glory.

I gave an example that in the USA, trees are harvested for various reasons, but more trees are planted than are harvested. I also said that we need to understand how sin and the curse of Genesis 3:14-19 have affected the world.

I recalled the verse, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Actually, that’s a major problem in the world and in the church! One of the reasons so many young people are being led astray by evolutionary ideas, climate change alarmists, abortionists, the LGBTQ movement, and so forth is that they have been told what to believe and not taught how to think about such issues or look at all the evidence available. And sadly, much of the church has not taught their congregations how to think about these issues from a biblical worldview perspective, and how to defend the Christian faith against the secular attacks of our day by equipping with apologetics.

Real Science – Real Scientists

An article by Ken Ham:

I’ve often heard the claim from atheists that creationists can’t be real scientists! What they really mean is if you are a scientist and a creationist, we (the atheists) will do all we can to discriminate against you and not allow you to be published because we are totally intolerant of Christianity.

Answers in Genesis has a number of PhD scientists. One of them obtained his PhD from Harvard university. All of our PhD scientists actually obtained their qualifications from well respected secular universities.

Yes, they are real scientists and ardent (literal Genesis) creationists. I wanted to feature some of them for you and give you a summary of some of the research they are doing to show that observational science confirms the bible’s account of history.

To me, research can be both boring and exciting at the same time! Boring—because sometimes it seems to take millions of years for our researchers to meticulously carry out their investigations! Exciting—because after years of research, our speakers and writers (and others) can use the results to show people how observational science confirms the Bible’s account in Genesis and devastates evolutionary ideas.

Take the research of Dr. Gabriela Haynes. She’s a PhD paleontologist who came to work in AiG’s research department from Brazil. Here her explain some of her research:

“Soft tissue in fossils was always something interesting for me as a paleontologist. Then, during my PhD research on Hymenoptera (wasps, ants, and bees) while I was looking for pollens, I found something that looked like blood cells in an insect fossil. As a creationist, that brought me a lot of excitement!

“At first my secular colleagues were excited to do some research, but then they concluded that those blood cells could not belong to the wasp since it is dated to supposedly 120 million years. They told me, “It is contamination. Don’t bother.” I just thought that their answer was not very scientific, and, as a creationist, I believed that there was a chance those blood cells were not the result of contamination. I tried to make them study the material, but it was in vain. They had already settled the case in their minds.

“I did some research by myself, and all the results I had were pointing to soft tissue material and blood cells. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the support from my secular colleagues to use the laboratory and run more tests.”

She is now continuing her research at Answers in Genesis, and publishing papers in our technical publication, Answers Research Journal.

In fact, there are now many examples of soft tissue found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old. Much more research needs to be done in this vital area and our scientists will certainly be doing this.

Then there’s our Harvard-trained PhD scientist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. He published his monumental book, Replacing Darwin. This ground-breaking book details his genetics research to clearly show that speciation, adaptation, and natural selection, when properly understood, devastate Darwinian evolution.

Dr. Jeanson has also been conducting research into human genetics. He’s looking into whether there’s evidence from human populations to confirm the biblical account of history beginning about 6,000 years ago. Dr. Jeanson’s research also has important things to say about the event of the Flood (i.e., all humans today are descendants of Noah’s sons) and the account of the Tower of Babel.

His research to date is blowing the evolutionary time scale out the window. Dr. Jeanson states:

“In our culture, few things provoke more ridicule than the idea that the earth is just 6,000 years old. As a biologist, I’ve witnessed my anti-evolutionary colleagues critique evolution—and deftly avoid the contentious and embarrassing age question—for decades. With the advent of modern genetics, this avoidance is no longer possible.

“For example, within each of our bodies, we have genetic “clocks” that have marked the passage of time since the dawn of humanity. If anyone wants to explain the origin of mankind, they must deal with these genetic clocks. My published research has found evidence that these clocks have ticked for only 6,000 years.

“I’m now exploring an even more powerful implication of this finding: if the global genetic differences among humans reflect 6,000 years, then they should also bear the stamp of the known history of civilization. If evolution were true, this stamp would be very difficult to detect. Instead, my initial results are showing that 6,000 years are indeed the hero of the plot. New funds would allow me to pursue this research further by obtaining new DNA sequences from other ethnic groups, further confirming this stamp of civilization—and underscoring the Bible’s accuracy on the age of the earth.”

Dr. Jeanson’s research also has some other interesting aspects. Known major events in human history actually show up in his genetics research! Incredible stuff!

He has now published a major book called, “Traced,” based on this research he is doing. He is also continuing to publish his results in Answers Research Journal.

Now evolutionists often use astronomy in an attempt to prove their billions of years/evolutionary history of the universe. There is so much more research needed in astronomy, and we praise the Lord that our PhD astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, is involved in all sorts of such fascinating research. Dr. Faulkner states:

“I have been working and publishing in the field of eclipsing binary stars for four decades. Two other creation astronomers who are close associates of mine also have studied eclipsing binary stars for years. We often have wondered why all three of us ended up in this field, and we may now know the answer to that question. Due to magnetic interactions of close binary stars, their orbital periods change. We are seeing evidence that these systems are changing far faster than previously thought.

These orbital changes place constraints upon the maximum possible ages of such systems, and it appears that their maximum ages must be far younger than the billions of years typically thought. This is very difficult to resolve with the evolutionary paradigm, but it is quite consistent with recent creation. Therefore, it is important that we continue to study this very interesting possibility.”

And then there’s the ongoing research conducted by Dr. Andrew Snelling, who has been leading research on the massive folding of sedimentary strata in the Grand Canyon. This is the project that the Grand Canyon National Park and secular scientists tried to stop. It’s that intolerance of anything Christian they have. But a legal challenge was lodged on our behalf by the religious freedom group, Alliance Defending Freedom. Because of clear and obvious violations of our First Amendment rights (discrimination, because we were Christians) by the federal government, Grand Canyon officials were forced to settle, and all the necessary specimens were collected.

Dr. Snelling’s ongoing research at the Canyon is being published in a series of papers in our free Answers Research Journal. Dr. Snelling explains more about this research:

“Evolutionary geologists claim the flat-lying sedimentary layers exposed like a stack of pancakes in the walls of the Grand Canyon were deposited grain by grain over 300 million years. Then some 150 million years later those layers were bent as the area was pushed up by earth movements to form a plateau. By that time, those layers were hard and brittle, so when they were bent, the rocks should have cracked and shattered. Or, because of the burial of these layers under a two-mile thickness of other layers above them, the pressure and heat may have made the rocks plastic enough to bend them smoothly as well.

“What we find is the layers are bent smoothly without any major cracking or shattering. So the layers had to have been bent while still soft. Thus, I have collected samples from these layers where they are bent and from well away from the bent layers for comparison. The laboratory and microscope examination results so far show no differences in either the minerals or the textures present in these sedimentary layers.”

What this research shows is that those layers could not be millions of years old—they couldn’t have been bent millions of years after they were laid down. The evolutionary story doesn’t fit at all. Dr. Snelling has found a lot of intriguing evidence he is now publishing.

Now, it only took you a few minutes to read this article. But the research I’ve outlined for you can take many months—or even a few years—to complete. And yet, such research is vital for the Answers in Genesis apologetics ministry.

I sometimes smile in my public talks as I share a particular piece of powerful evidence, but I take just a minute to do it! I know it may have taken two years of painfully meticulous work for a researcher to complete the work.

Yes, I am passionate about our research team and their work

The ongoing research by our PhD scientists is so important in today’s anti-Christian culture. It’s crucial that Christians have the tools and the information they need to help refute the many attacks on the Bible.

“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” 1 Timothy 6:20.

Understanding Culture – Past & Present

An article by Ken Ham:

Using Bible references and secular sources, I want to help you understand cultures—past and present—and where they stood spiritually and morally. It’s a reminder that the sin nature of man has not changed!

Let’s consider the past.

•Idolatry: The Israelites were warned about idolatry over and over again. For instance, we read,

“Who say to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ For they have turned their back to me” (Jeremiah 2:27).

•Child sacrifice: Many examples are cited in the Old Testament about this evil (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 21:6; Ezekiel 20:31; Jeremiah 32:35). Of course, it is well known that thousands of years ago, the Canaanites conducted human sacrifice, using children. There’s much evidence the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca societies were conducting child sacrifice just a few hundred years ago.

•Euthanasia: It appears that ritual euthanasia was practiced by numerous ancient cultures. The Phoenicians were known to poison their older individuals. Both the Spartans and the Romans would leave children that they deemed disabled out to die in the elements. Also, ancient Indian cultures were known to throw elderly adults in the Ganges River to drown.

•Sexual Sin: Homosexual behavior—Scripture teaches against such behavior (Leviticus 20:13) and records examples as warnings for us (Genesis 19:1–14; Judges 19:15–30; Romans 1:26–27). Homosexual behavior was a running theme in the literature of the ancient Greeks and Romans. And you’ve heard of the judgment God meted out on Sodom and Gomorrah!

Bestiality—This behavior was known in ancient cultures, and the Bible warned the Israelites against this evil (Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15). Bestiality seems to have been a form of punishment in ancient Rome, used in the arena to humiliate a prisoner before death. Ancient Egyptians also appear to have engaged in it based on their hieroglyphics. In addition, bestiality appears in the mythology of numerous cultures.

Prostitution—God warns against this sin in many places in Scripture, including Proverbs 5:3–14, Proverbs 9:13–18, and Exodus 20:14. Prostitution was amazingly common in the ancient world. Athens was a hotbed, and its well-known statesman Pericles was notorious for keeping one as a mistress. Herodotus wrote of temple prostitution in Babylon. Ancient Chinese emperors are said to have employed prostitutes to service their armies. In Hinduism, temple prostitution is associated with their goddess of fertility and is still practiced today (even though it was outlawed in India decades ago).

Pedophilia—This sin was also a common practice in the ancient world. Greek and Roman men were notorious for taking boys as their “lovers” (though in the Roman world it was limited to slaves, not freeborn citizens).

Transgenderism—There appears to be references to transgenderism in the ancient world. Apparently, ancient Assyria had transgender prostitutes. Ancient Greece and later Rome had a cult religion that was transgendered (at least in the priesthood). Transgenderism is found in Roman poetry as well. The Roman Emperor Elagabalus is known to have identified as a woman and requested primitive gender reassignment surgery.

What’s my point in listing all of these terrible things?

Well, Ecclesiastes 1:9 states, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

People have often described our Western world as having civilized cultures, whereas many of the past societies have been described as barbaric or degenerate.

The Bible makes it clear that the nature of sin has not changed. Jeremiah reminds us that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9).

God also warns us in Romans chapter 1 that as people rebel against God, he turns them over to their depraved natures—and a sexual revolution, homosexual revolution, and gender revolution will follow.

My point is this: because of sin, if we don’t work and pray hard to raise up generations on the foundation of God’s Word and its life-changing gospel message, their naturally depraved sin natures will again exhibit the same behaviors as those listed above. That’s why God warned the Israelites over and over again, and why he instructed them to raise up godly offspring.

Now consider the present.

We now see that all the perverse behaviors above are permeating our “civilized” Western culture. Just like the Israelites of the Old Testament, parents have failed to raise up godly generations, so now we increasingly see young and old behave as described in Judges 21:25: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Actually, Romans 1 is happening before our very eyes.

•Idolatry—The teaching of evolution/millions of years (which many church leaders have condoned for the next generation to believe) is no different from Jeremiah 2:27. People are really saying, “Matter—you are my father; you gave birth to me.” Coming generations are no different from past generations who “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25), thus “God gave them up” (Romans 1:26).

So, we are observing all the following behaviors again:

•Child sacrifice—It’s called by different names in our culture, such as abortion, “health care,” and women’s reproductive rights. But they are just hiding the fact that abortion is nothing less than sacrificing children to the “god of self.”

Over 65 million have been murdered in the USA since 1973. Now I ask you this: which is the more barbaric culture? Those of the past or the present?

•Euthanasia—This practice is also becoming another prominent issue in our Western world with more and more countries making this freely offered to adults—and even children!

•Sexual Sin—Homosexual behavior: In the last few years, this has become a dominant issue in our culture. The pressure to welcome and accept such behavior has become all-pervasive in the media, schools, and government.

Bestiality: We’ve even seen some recent news articles of this happening in our culture. One article gave an example of an atheist’s refusal to label bestiality as an immoral act illustrating what happens when there are no objective moral standards.

Prostitution: We know this exists in various ways in our culture.

Pedophilia: Recent calls have gone out to legalize pedophilia. Some people even try to justify such behavior in academic articles. Again, what would we expect when a culture lets go of any objective moral standards?

Transgenderism: This has also become a dominant issue in our society. Drag queens are now giving children talks in public libraries. Some parents are stating that they are bringing up their children to be “gender fluid.” A few government agencies (and other groups) are adding alternatives to male and female on various forms and documents. In some places (as has happened in one instance with a committee in California recently), people are being told not to use he, she, her, or him in referring to people.

Our culture is no different from those of the past that we call barbaric!

And we also see polyamory (males, females, children in all sorts of combinations of immoral relationships) growing in popularity. And there are calls to legalize polygamy.

But I must make this point clear: our culture is no different from those of the past that we call barbaric! And that’s because the sin nature of unregenerate man hasn’t changed. And that’s the problem.

Now, the solution has never changed, and that solution is the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel. I often remind people that what we see happening around us today is the consequence of a battle that began 6,000 years ago in a garden.

It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word. It began when the devil came to Eve and asked, “Did God actually say?” (Genesis 3:1).

As I’ve shown, the basic attack in this battle is on the authority of the Word of God. The nature of the attack has never changed, but the means by which the devil carries it out has changed. We need to understand how this battle manifests itself today so we can be effective soldiers for the King.

A “Private Prayer Language” – Is It Biblical?

Article by Justin Peters – original source: https://www.forthegospel.org/read/is-having-a-private-prayer-language-biblical?

“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.” — 1 Cor. 14:2 (Legacy Standard Bible)

One of the most often employed and most convincing arguments marshaled for the charismatic position of a “private prayer language” is 1 Corinthians 14:2. The Apostle Paul says that one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God, supporting the charismatic belief that the gift of tongues is a private prayer language. The fact that “no one understands” seems to support that this language is not a human language at all but rather a heavenly, angelic one.


Are all “tongues” the same gift?
For this position to hold, it must first be assumed that the gift of tongues in Acts 2 is fundamentally different than the gift of tongues described in 1 Corinthians 12-14. There is complete agreement between charismatics and cessationists that the gift of tongues in Acts 2 involves known human languages. Those languages, 16 of them, are conveniently listed in the text. The argument that the gift of tongues listed in 1 Corinthians does not refer to known human languages is a hard sell, however, given that Luke wrote Acts five years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. If the gift in 1 Corinthians was fundamentally different from the gift in Acts, why would Luke, a traveling companion of Paul’s, use the same word for tongues as Paul (glossolalia) and ascribe to the gift the same source (the Holy Spirit) as Paul? It stretches credulity that Luke would not make such a fundamental difference known. The reason he did not is that it is the same gift.


Who is Paul referring to?
So, if the person speaking in a tongue is speaking in a known human language, why would “no one understand”? The “no one” does not refer to all people throughout the world, but only to those in the local Corinthian assembly. No one in the church of Corinth would understand what was being spoken because the message would be in a known language but one unknown to them. This person “speaks to God” because only God understands what is being spoken (He does, after all, know all human languages). This is precisely why Paul stresses the necessity of an interpreter. Paul says that if there is no one to interpret, “let him keep silent” (1 Cor. 12:28). An interpreter, or translator, must translate so that the church can be edified.


What is the purpose of spiritual gifts?
Remember that the purpose of the spiritual gifts is for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 12:7), not for our own private use! We cannot carve out an exception for the gift of tongues and say, ‘This one I’m using for myself.’ That defeats the entire purpose for which the Holy Spirit gives His gifts. There is no record anywhere in scripture of anyone speaking to God in anything but a known human language. We should hasten to point out that this includes the angels and Jesus Himself! So when you pray, pray like the Apostles and Jesus prayed — in a language you actually understand.

Two Worthwhile Quotes:

“I have long felt that, whereas I stand foursquare on the evangelical faith, I have no patience with those people whose supposed fundamentalism consists in watching for heresy and indulging in wicked self-satisfaction because they have an idea that they alone ‘hold the truth’–hateful expression! Whereas in many ways I agree with their theological position I abominate their spirit.” – G. Campbell Morgan (1863 – 1945)

“Denominations are good, not bad, because they allow each church to follow Jesus according to conscience, and they keep strife between Christians of different convictions at bay… Keep clear fences but keep them low and shake hands over them often.” – Dr. Mark Dever