Undoing Baptism on National Atheist’s Day

Correction: A commenter has pointed out that I made an error in assigning the bus campaign to the NSS in my first paragraph.  The campaign was actually conceived by Ariane Sherine and funded by the British Humanist Association.  My apologies for any confusion that may have caused.

After reading discussions at theoldadam about people who “reject” their baptism as infants, I never expected to see something quite so literal in that vein.  Turns out that the geniuses at the National Secular Society in Britain who came up with the forceful campaign that proclaimed, “there probably is no God,” have now thought of the idea of a “debaptism” certificate for those who wish to formally reject their baptism.

This is as dumb an idea as any other they have ever come up with and I wanted to give it a special place on this day.  I am endlessly amused at the lengths to which those who claim to either not believe in God or not know what god to believe in will go to to distance themselves from something they don’t believe exists.  If that sentence sounds confusing, well you get the point.  I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I know plenty of people who do and it doesn’t bother me in the least.  I can even watch television shows about Santa Claus and movies and see him in the mall and I am not offended in the slightest.  But atheists and other non-believers get their whole lives in a snit over someone else’s beliefs in something they consider to be non-existent.

Why?

Because, deep down they aren’t that sure that they are right.  How can they be?  Did you notice the brilliant campaign slogan of this group in Britain?  They said, “there probably is no god.”  It is the probably that haunts them.  The evidence is all around.  Paul said that God is evident from His creation to any who see it.  One of the authors, speakers and writers that I truly enjoy is Ray Comfort.  He has a way of saying things that make you stop in your tracks to think.  His latest book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think, is generating more frustration from the atheist crowd than ever before.  They call it simple and ignorant, but the problem is that they cannot dismiss the “simple claims” as patently false except by wishful thinking.  I am reading through C.S. Lewis’ classic, Mere Christianity, for a class that I am taking.  The simplicity of the basic foundation he lays out for a Law of Nature that all understand to exist is profound and easy to understand.  But the implications of it for all who hope that God “probably” isn’t real is devastating.

But I digress.  What is it that the “debaptism” folks hope to accomplish?  According to the article, they want to “punish the church” with this:

De-baptism organisers say the initiative is a response to what they see as increasing stridency from churches — the latest last week when Pope Benedict XVI stirred global controversy on a trip to AIDS-ravaged Africa by saying condom use could further spread of the disease.

“The Catholic Church is so politically active at the moment that I think that is where the hostility is coming from,” said Sanderson. “In Catholic countries there is a very strong feeling of wanting to punish the church by leaving it.”

In Britain, where government figures say nearly 72 percent of the population list themselves as Christian, Sanderson feels this “hostility” is fueling the de-baptism movement.

There may be something to this.  Just a week or so ago, I wrote a post about the Pope’s statements about condoms that generated a cryptic response from a reader who said I made him “sad to call himself a Christian.”  There was no explanation why this was the case.  Just an open-ended statement of disappointment.

What else is at work in this movement?  Apparently, consider their baptism meaningless because they did give any assent to it and had no decision in it:

“We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds (4.35 dollars, 3.20 euros) a pop,” said NSS president Terry Sanderson, 58.

John Hunt, a 58-year-old from London and one of the first to try to be “de-baptised,” held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old.

I know that my Lutheran friends are going to decry this entire attitude and I don’t blame them.  I just wonder if this fits into the realm of “rejecting” the promises that God gave them in their baptism from a Lutheran point of view.  And another fun question for my Lutheran friends (Steve, you can invite Larry to opine on this for me if you want), does a person who formally rejects his baptism in such a manner need to be rebaptized?

Somehow this topic seems appropriately “foolish” for a day like today.  What do you think?  Can someone be “debaptized”?

Advertisements
Categories: Agnostics, Atheists, baptism, Christianity, church, Culture, Heresy, Humor, Signs of the Times, theology | 31 Comments

Post navigation

31 thoughts on “Undoing Baptism on National Atheist’s Day

  1. George Musgrave

    It might be possible to debaptize one self from this physical world (realm) but thanks be to God, there is no debaptizing from the spiritual realm

  2. Jeff,

    Just when we thought we’d seen everything!

    Well, it is not suprising to me. It is very sad, but not suprising.

    People just cannot stand Jesus Christ. They hate God and wish to stick it to Him every chance they get.

    This is rampant in Britain where the church itself has a problem with Jesus. They do not want to offend anyone.

    Well, Jesus Himself is the offense.

    The promise made in baptism, infant or not, is always good and valid since God is the One who makes the promise. So re-baptism is not necessary.

    If one were to renounce their baptism and then God were to pull them back into the faith, the original baptism still stands.

    That’s the Lutheran view, I believe. Some may differ with me…but they would be wrong 😀

    Thanks Jeff!

  3. If punishing the church is the real motivation (not rejecting something they don’t believe is existing in the first place) then of course they can “de-baptize”, cancel church memberships, raise public awareness regarding their position etc.

    I think it offers the church a unique opportunity to affirm that the nature of faith is not to force people to be part of an institution but an invitation to be amazed by God’s attitude towards us – an attitude that says, “You can ignore me, you can deny me, you can spit me in the face and even torture and try to kill me – there’s just one thing you cannot do: You cannot make me love you any less because of it!”

    So, from that perspective, in the spiritual realm, like your dad said, no debaptizing can ever take place nor would rebaptism be necessary if someone changed his or her mind by God’s grace.

  4. Steve,
    I thought of you and your readers when I first saw this story. Thanks for your perspective on what this would mean regarding “rejecting baptism.” I kind of see this whole thing in the same lines as those dim bulbs who recorded a “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” video on YouTube a while back. It isn’t the brightest thing to do and I can’t imagine how they could do it if they were a child of God, but God is still greater than our hearts.

  5. I think it offers the church a unique opportunity to affirm that the nature of faith is not to force people to be part of an institution but an invitation to be amazed by God’s attitude towards us – an attitude that says, “You can ignore me, you can deny me, you can spit me in the face and even torture and try to kill me – there’s just one thing you cannot do: You cannot make me love you any less because of it!”

    This is an excellent point and a great suggestion. I think we need to take every opportunity to expound on the love of God that doesn’t flinch in the face of the hate and scorn of man.

  6. Dan

    “geniuses at the National Secular Society in Britain who came up with the forceful campaign that proclaimed, “there probably is no God,””

    No they didn’t. It was Ariane Sherine. And the fund was managed by the British Humanist Association.

    I have two points.

    First of all, I can’t think of any good reason to think that once you stop believing in something, that something becomes necessarily *meaningless*. OF course, you might reject belief in something that you thought was meaningless, but that needn’t be so.

    Baptism may be disbelieved, but it may still have meaning, socially or politically. Politically it certainly does, because we know that baptismal statistics are in fact used in arguments around church/state issues.

    Which brings me to my second point.

    It’s interesting that so many people profess to be baffled at why some atheists want to criticise or attack the church.

    The reason, of course, is that religious organisations still enjoy a privileged position in British society. There are huge controversies around religious control of schools, there are bishops in the legislature, and so on.

    Perhaps, just maybe, atheists are angry at the inequality of religious dominance. Ever think about that? Why not?

    Dan

  7. Dan,

    “geniuses at the National Secular Society in Britain who came up with the forceful campaign that proclaimed, “there probably is no God,””

    No they didn’t. It was Ariane Sherine. And the fund was managed by the British Humanist Association.

    Point taken. I will add an update note to the top of this post. I didn’t catch my own mistake there. Thank you.

    First of all, I can’t think of any good reason to think that once you stop believing in something, that something becomes necessarily *meaningless*. OF course, you might reject belief in something that you thought was meaningless, but that needn’t be so.

    If it isn’t “meaningless,” then why stop believing in it at all? This seems like a bizarre assertion to make from my perspective. I agree that things don’t lose their meaning simply because someone stops believing in them; that was part of the point of the post. But I am saying that those who stop believing in them, by necessity must believe them to be “meaningless.” I am not just parsing words here. That is sheer logic.

    Baptism may be disbelieved, but it may still have meaning, socially or politically. Politically it certainly does, because we know that baptismal statistics are in fact used in arguments around church/state issues.

    While you may be right in some degree since I am not privy to all the inner workings of British politics, the article made plain that the church of England doesn’t keep these statistics.

    It’s interesting that so many people profess to be baffled at why some atheists want to criticise or attack the church.

    The reason, of course, is that religious organisations still enjoy a privileged position in British society. There are huge controversies around religious control of schools, there are bishops in the legislature, and so on.

    Perhaps, just maybe, atheists are angry at the inequality of religious dominance. Ever think about that? Why not?

    I don’t remember professing any bewilderment at the reason atheists want to criticize or attack the church as much as I used it as a setup to present my thinking behind their actions. I said, “Because, deep down they aren’t that sure that they are right. How can they be? Did you notice the brilliant campaign slogan of this group in Britain? They said, “there probably is no god.” It is the probably that haunts them. The evidence is all around. Paul said that God is evident from His creation to any who see it.”

    You seem to assume that I have never considered the fact that atheists might be angry because of the inequalities they experience, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. I also stop to ponder a simple fact. Why is it that in its long history, atheism has never been the dominant view? It isn’t as if atheism is new. The Bible even mentions atheists directly.
    I think the reason is that an atheist’s claim to have all knowledge is absurd and most people can see through it. By definition, for an atheist to be confident that there is no God would mean that he has exhausted all possible knowledge that there is any god. This is why the “new Atheists” sometimes come across as ridiculous even to people who agree with them. Even the campaign that I references was only bold enough to say that there is probably no God. An agnostic is more honest about his own limited knowledge than the atheist who stridently proclaims that there is “no god” at all. I honestly don’t know where you fall on the scale, but you sound pretty intelligent so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

    I do want to thank you for taking the time to comment Dan. I appreciate you catching my error above as well.

  8. First of all, Santa makes me sick. If it would not be a horrible witness, I would host a Santa burning.
    People need to protest when an issue is eating at them. Flags are burned , bras, draft cards.
    I can understand how someone who was “baptized” without consent would want to undo that. That is one reason my faith does not allow baptizing some one before the age of understanding.
    Nobody likes to be railroaded into anything, and a baby has no vote.
    In the meantime, those people who are being unbaptized, need to realize they were never baptized in the first place, they were dedicated. Baptized means dunked, and then by request, with understanding.

  9. Did you ever consider that opposing infant baptism is actually denying the grace of God ?

    I think this is a serious matter.

    I believe that God acts in baptism and that the promises made there are good and valid, no matter the unbelief and denial of theose promises.

  10. If given a choice between trusting in my “decision”, or my seriousness, or my feelings, or my “fruits of the faith”…or trusting what God has done for me in my baptism (at whatever age)…I will choose God’s decision for me. I will trust in what He does FOR ME in the sacraments.

    That people do not and want to renounce their baptisms or poo poo then to begin with, is no suprise to me.

    We just can’t stand a God that actually take charge of saving us.

    We’d rather have a weak, snively little god that comes to us begging for us to make a decision for him.

    “Please choose me.” Please make a decision for me.”

    What kind of a self-respecting God would act like a mendicant at the door begging for US TO DO something?

    I don’t buy it. Not for a minute.

    They can renounce their baptisms but they can never undo God’s promises made therein.

  11. ““Please choose me.” Please make a decision for me.”

    What kind of a self-respecting God would act like a mendicant at the door begging for US TO DO something?”

    Sorry, Steve … but that exactly where you shouldn’t listen so much to your human logic and understanding of God but to what He revealed about Himself:

    1. He stepped down from the throne, emptied Himself and became a slave(!). He even stooped to wash His creatures’ dirty feet. The King of the Universe chose to be spat in the face and yet He lost not an ounce of self-respect. It’s called “love” and “sacrifice”.

    2. His chosen way of bringing people to faith is sending ambassadors who ask and urge people to be reconciled to God. Call it “begging”, call it “wooing”, call it “inviting” – THAT’S the way the Holy Spirit works in seeming weakness but with great conviction and power!

  12. It amazes me that we have the power to grieve the Holy Spirit. I do not think God begs. Too many turn away, even some who call themselves Christian do serve Jesus by repenting and being a disciple.
    STEVE, if the Gospel message is to repent, and be Baptized, how does an infant repent? and of what? I really think that is a hold over from the roman Catholic days where people thought their children would go to hell if not baptized, a real power play. I just had a call to day from a 45 year old guy that wants to be baptized. Now there is a case of serious repentance!

  13. Did you ever consider that opposing infant baptism is actually denying the grace of God ?

    Steve,
    I can honestly say that if that much was at stake, God has done us all a great disservice by not making it plain to understand. I have certainly been in the discussions at your blog about this issue. I actually see more potential harm in baptizing infants than not. God’s promise is given to whomever He wants to give it to regardless of their baptismal status. Paul makes that plain in Romans. God chooses whomever He wants whether we dunk them or not is irrelevant. In that frame of reference, baptism is given more for us from God, which I think you would agree with as I frequently hear reference to God’s promises made in baptism.
    It is just that we see this act as a marker in a believer’s life of their confession that Jesus is Lord. It is indeed a touchstone in a believer’s life. Here is a practical walkthrough in Scripture:

    Romans 10:9-10 – 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

    1 Corinthians 12:3 – Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

    Mark 16:15-16 – 15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

    Thus we see that confession of Christ as Lord is only possible through the Spirit of God and it is followed by baptism. This is the normative practice in all of the New Testament.

    I believe that God acts in baptism and that the promises made there are good and valid, no matter the unbelief and denial of those promises.

    Do you think that God would force Himself on someone? I know this may seem like a redundant sort of question, but if God simply wished for all of us to trust in Him, I believe that He has the ability to do that. But for reasons that are completely a mystery to you and me, God willingly holds back and many reject Him and turn the other way.

  14. You guys would pick the day that I travel to Grand Forks to start a lively discussion.
    Will,
    I think burning Santa in effigy is probably a little too risky, but I hear where you are coming from. I have begun minimizing Christmas clutter. I am nearly ready to toss the tree at this point. I am actually working on a post for SBC Voices that talks about Christmas and Easter some. We will see if it makes the cut there. If not, I will post it here.

    I just had a call to day from a 45 year old guy that wants to be baptized. Now there is a case of serious repentance!

    Praise the Lord, Will. That is great news.

  15. “I really think that is a hold over from the Roman Catholic days where people thought their children would go to hell if not baptized, a real power play.”

    Will, I had to read Jeremias Gotthelf’s “The Black Spider” in High School – here’s one review:
    http://praymont.blogspot.com/2008/07/gotthelfs-black-spider.html

    One of the main features of the story are courageous ministers saving newborn children from the devil by baptizing them immediately after birth.

    If I’m not mistaken, all Lutheran churches still have provisions that parents can baptize their own children if they are in danger of dying and the pastor may not be able to make it there on time. In the old country, they called it “Nottaufe” – “Emergency Baptism”.

    This is one part of my heritage that I happily left behind for good! Actually I never believed in the first place that God would treat unbaptized babies any different than baptized ones.

  16. Josh,
    I have never heard of this story. I went and read the review, but I guess I will have to dig a little more into it to understand it better.
    I have never heard of “emergency baptisms” either, but it doesn’t surprise me. I agree with you that God is no respecter of persons, including infants. He does what He does and He is right in what He does. That is good enough for me.

  17. I dont know Jeff, I think I disagree with you.

    I know where the Atheists are coming from. They didn’t have a choice in becoming baptized, they feel forced and it goes against their free will of decision making. Granted, baptism should always be a personal decision. And with Catholicism it never is (at least as a child, of course) and that is sad.

    I can see why, as an Atheist, you would want to “de-baptize” yourself. In fact, I support them in that decision. It’s a nice way to let go. Being an atheist, especially when bound to a religious family or previously being religious can be a very painful experience…I’m sure “de-baptizing” yourself is a great way to really just let go of things. Kind of similar to how Christians lay all their baggage down at their cross. It’s extremely symbolic, and yet extremely helpful.

    That’s how I see it.

  18. Steve,
    I forgot about your phrasing earlier about God’s self-respect. I meant to touch on that thought too. Is it possible that God isn’t “self-respecting” like we wish He was? I remember the furor that Rich Mullins created with his song that referred to the “reckless, raging fury that they call the love of God.” People couldn’t stand the idea that God’s love was referred to as reckless, but what else can you call it really? Maybe God isn’t “respectable” in the way we wish He was. I don’t mean this to say that he isn’t worthy of our respect, only that He isn’t hung up on being “respectable” in our limited view of things.

  19. I know where the Atheists are coming from. They didn’t have a choice in becoming baptized, they feel forced and it goes against their free will of decision making.

    Hope,
    I understand this perspective, but I puzzle over it, because it betrays a double-mindedness in the atheist who “needs” this in my opinion. That is probably where we disagree, but if they are so firm in their convictions that God doesn’t exist and the church is meaningless and so forth, then what makes their baptism any different that getting rained on or taking a bath? If it is just an empty symbol to them done against their will, why make such a big deal about it?

    I can see why, as an Atheist, you would want to “de-baptize” yourself. In fact, I support them in that decision. It’s a nice way to let go.

    I appreciate your perspective on this very much. I see what you are saying and I understand it at one level, but it is amusing to me to think that an atheist is recanting a religious experience in a way that very much gives some level of credence back to the religious experience. It is the irony of the action that gets me. Does that make sense?

  20. Oh I’m sure they had a lot of fun with it too. I was merely taking the more serious side. Of COURSE it’s ridiculous Jeff, but it’s also kind of serious. That’s all I was saying. I’m sure they had loads of fun poking fun at it and all.

  21. You are probably right about that. That part of it actually saddens me. God is gracious and slow to anger and forgiving the minute we turn in repentance despite anything and everything that we do, but there are some stern warnings in Scripture about mocking Him. I don’t ever think it is a good idea to test those.

  22. Josh,

    Sorry Josh…God chooses us…we do NOT choose Him.

    Our Lord tells us that Himself and Paul tells us as much in Romans.

  23. “Sorry Josh…God chooses us…we do NOT choose Him.”

    Steve,

    Why can’t both be part of the equation? What is your understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:20?

  24. Josh,

    “…BE reconciled…”.

    Passive.

    It’s a matter of emphasis, is all.

    I just like to emphasize the truth that we do not want Him to begin with, and that we barely want Him after that.

    We aren’t much different than Peter. We deny Him and often think we know better.

    But that He still loves and forgives us is where (I believe) we ought place the onus.

    That’s all.

    It also helps keep us off our high horses.

  25. Steve,

    I never suggested that WE do or accomplish the reconciling. It’s abundantly clear from what Paul said right before in V.18 that ALL is from God as far as the new reality of grace, forgiveness and peace with God is concerned. And I’m convinced just as much as you are that Christ ultimately is the author of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

    But the whole point of my question about V.20 is the logical conclusion. Does God draw us into that reality through some objective sacramental act and not by asking? I think you can’t escape the conclusion that Paul counted on the fact that in the apostles’ evangelistic proclamation the word of God would create the faith that would embrace the Gospel. They preached in such a way that people were told who Christ is and what God has done for them through Him. And then they would ask people to embrace God’s love and grace personally.

    Those whose hearts were pierced and convicted by the Holy Spirit responded in repentance and faith and were baptized. Let’s not create dichotomies that biblically are non-existent. So I still think you need to reconsider and take back what you concluded about the self-respect of God. God is not too proud or exalted to use the means of ASKING to bring people to faith!

  26. Just a few verses to illustrate that God choosing us does not mean we shouldn’t ask or try to convince people to make a choice regarding the invitation in the Gospel:

    Acts 2:40 “With many other words he warned them and PLEADED with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation!’ ”

    2 Corinthians 5:11 “Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to PERSUADE men.”

    2 Corinthians 5:20 “We IMPLORE you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God!”

    Revelation 22:17 “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.”

  27. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word.

    I am trying to understand a Calvinistic Lutheran. We are chosen by God to be born into a family that baptizes us as an infant?

  28. It’s a good discussion that reminds me of the majesty of God. In western culture, we tend to have a problem with things we can’t explain. We like the idea of understanding. God turns that on its ear all the time. There is no question that there is language in the Bible that invites us to a relationship with God, some of which Josh has quoted here. There is also no question that God is very plain in the fact that he chooses His own based on nothing that they have done. It sounds like a huge puzzle to be solved, but it isn’t one for which we have all of the pieces. In God’s view and perspective, both things are true, but from our vantage point they seem mutually exclusive.

  29. Word and sacrament.

    Jesus is the Word.

    Faith IS A GIFT.

    It is given to us. Yes, through the hearing of the Word. But how much credit do you want to ascribe to us in that? And how much to God?

    What was Paul doing when he made his decision for Christ?

    We believe God creates faith inside our hearts by His action and His action…alone. Do we respond? Of course! But we take no credit for our response.

    So we believe the picture of a weak god that begs us to make a decision for him is totally accurate picture of a god who does not exist, except in the figment of our immagination.

    The Gos who does exist ‘compels’ us to faith. That is the proper traslation of tghe word “draw”. “NO man can come to me…” Jesus says “unless the Father draw him.”

    The Lord compels. “Called and chosen” are the words the New Testament uses to describe how faith is born. The words ‘decision for Christ’ , or accept Jesus’ do not appear in the New Testament.

    We believe this understanding starts us off on the foot in our Christian walk and helps keep us from an attitude of self -pride, wherein someone says, or thinks, or feels…”well sure…I’m a Christian…I made the right choice. I did it. I made the decision.”

    That, we believe, is exactly the wrong attitude to have and can catapult the person into the self-improvement, Christian progression project.

    That’s why we are adamant about the distinction.

    Thanks for hearing me.

    I have had a super busy weekend out of the house, so excuse my lack of current participation in the discussion.

    Jeff, Josh, Will, Hope…you guys(and gal) are terrific!

    What a pleasure it i to be able to discuss these matters with you all.

    I look forward to the day when we can get together at the wedding feast and enjoy each other’s company and laugh… and love our Lord and each other, even more so than we are doing now!

    What a great time we will have together!

    Pardon my sentimentality, but I was reunited with my son yesterday who was in prison for awhile.

    I feel like the Dad, in the Prodigal son parable.

    Talk to you soon!

    – Steve

  30. Steve,

    I really don’t think we have any disagreement about the origin of faith or the futility of taking credit for anything positive we do, including our intitial response in accepting the word (this “accepting” is a New Testament phrase used for conversion, btw!).

    God compelling and his human instruments pleading (Pleading for what? To respond to God’s grace in Christ, I would think!) are not a contradiction. It would be interesting to hear from Lutheran evangelists how they give their invitation to respond to their evangelistic message as opposed to the familiar evangelical ones, including Billy Graham.

    It seems that Paul worked hard on even removing intellectual obstacles that may have kept the message from being compelling to certain hearers (Acts 9:29; 17:2; 18:4). Becoming all things to all men in order to save some (1 Corinthians 9:22) may sound incompatible to his emphasis on the kind of preaching that was not focused on wise and persuasive words (1 Corinthians 2:4) but somehow he managed to integrate both.

    The dangers you mentioned, Steve, are real, no doubt about that. But should those dangers keep us from asking people to respond and surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ? I think not. Jesus and the apostles saw no problem in asking people to repent in spite of the same possible misunderstanding of seeing it as a mere personal choice with no “interference” or causality from God’s side.

    How would you formulate such a call to personal response today? And would this call be less susceptible to be misunderstood in the same way?

  31. Josh,

    The gospel calls people to a response (without making it into a law) every time it is preached.

    The laws does it’s work and the gospel does it’s work and the sacraments do their work.

    These aspects of the Word will either work in someone, or they won’t.

    When Jesus was asked how all this works, he said (in essence) ‘it’s a mystery’.

    “The wind blows where It will.”

    So we believe to turn it into a choice, or a question that must be answered one way, or the other, is to turn the gospel into just another law.

    So we preach it, and it does whatever It will do. And we leave it at that. We offer it freely without anything TO DO on the part of the sinner.

    Making a decision, or a choice might only be one small work…but it is one small work too many.

    And to the baptized, we remind them of God’s promises and that they now belong to Him.

    And there are dangers in this approach, too. But we feel if we are going to err, we’d rather err on the side of God’s grace, than in our decision, or committment.

    Thank you, Josh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: