If You Don't Like That I Baptize My Infant, Stop Being Christian (or) You Say "Believer's Baptism" But Clearly Don't Know What Either Word Means

Ah, a favorite target of the radical reformed protestant: infant baptism.

(Following clear passages of Scripture is sooooo cool!)

Much like with the words of institution ("this is my body... this is my blood..."), members of churches that aren't labeled Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican tend to like attacking clear Biblical teachings.  (There are some in those groups that attack as well, but official stance precludes such stupidity.)

(And I'm looking at you, ELCA, when I say that.)

A while back I read an article posted about how Christians should give up Lent for Lent.  Overall, its clear the author didn't get why people do give up something in the first place.  But I'm focusing on how they used the historic practice of infant baptism as a reason why people should reject giving up something for Lent.

(And, no, I'm not going to provide the link.  Mostly because the article was dumb.)

I'll admit, I don't give up stuff for Lent.  Mostly because I don't have the willpower and stamina to see it through, and I probably won't give up something substantial anyway.  Besides, it's not something "necessary," unlike how Christ died for our sins, which is the point of Lent.

What does that have to do with infant baptism?  Nothing.  At all.

Except for the undeniable fact that through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and that this baptism is for all people of all races and all ages - including infants.

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that baptism is an outward sign of one's faith.  Or a symbol.  Or an act of obedience.  Or that there are different versions.  Or that you, the dead man, can choose it.

(Warning!  This blog post, and this blog in general, is dangerous to the followers of the heterodox teachings of Arminius and Calvin.)

What Scripture does teach, with clear and understandable words, is that baptism saves you, regardless of your age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, job, tax bracket, hair style, language, music preference, or shoe size.  An infant being brought to baptism in the Triune name of God receives the exact same baptism received by the people at Pentecost, by the Ethiopian eunuch, and by Cornelius.

If you are one of those who find yourself antagonistic to this historic and undeniably biblical practice and currently find yourself feeling a bit more like an irate Dr. Bruce Banner, I'm not sorry.

And why should I be?  Why should I be sorry for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ?  Why should I be sorry for reading Scripture and believing it means exactly what it says?  Why should I be sorry for wanting to provide my children with the same saving faith I was raised in?  Why should I be sorry for not rejecting my Lord's command but following it to the letter?

It's the antagonists to this time-honored and biblical practice that should be sorry***.

Don't believe me?  That's fine.  I'll stop using my words, and simply use the words of God.  Here are some passages about baptism.  (And, in reality, opponents of this using the line "you have your passages that support you're belief and we have ours" are dumb.  Because we Lutherans have all the passages supporting us.  This is just the quick list for those who do not have the time for a full-bore exegetical study.)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 3:21

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."  Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"  Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'  The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."  John 3:3-8

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  Mark 16:16

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."  Acts 2:38-39

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead.  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.  Colossians 2:11-13

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  Ephesians 4:4-6

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  Ephesians 5:25-27

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:11

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.  Acts 22:16

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.  Acts 19:5-6

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.  Revelation 22:17

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.  Ezekiel 36:25-27

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:22

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  Romans 6:1-4

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.  Galatians 3:27-29

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  Titus 3:5-7

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:19-20

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.  1 John 5:7-9

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.  1 Corinthians 10:1-4

To be honest, this list alone should be enough, without any explanation, context, or defense.  And yet, there are "Christians" who make it necessary to stand up for the biblical and historic practices of the Church Catholic.

(And before anyone gets their big kid skivvies in a twist, I did not say "Roman Catholic Church."  The RCC is a specific denomination within the Church Catholic.  The word "catholic" means "universal."  Its a descriptor for how the Church transcends human labels and organizations.  Call it the "True Church" or "Unified Church" if you'd rather.)

I don't get why people are so opposed to the practice of baptizing infants.  (Okay, so that's a lie, I do get it, hence why I'm writing about it.)  Especially groups like the Anabaptists and the Baptists.  For crying out loud, guys, the term "baptism" is in your groups' names.  How is it you don't get it?

(On the left we have the "believer's baptism."  On the right we have the traditional practice of baptism, including infant baptism.)

I'm assuming the people who oppose it "don't get it" instead of "reject it" under the assumption found in Walther's XX thesis, which basically says "don't assume heresy when ignorance is an option."  Basically, I'm calling y'all just dumb enough to not see what's obvious.

And in this sort of apologetic duel, that's being mighty generous.  (Especially since a fair number of those who don't "get it" are, in fact, flat out rejecting it because it doesn't fit in their narrow, twisted, egotistical view of what the Bible means.)

Enough munching on appetizers, how about the main course?  Where to start, though?  Remaining consistently with my standard operating procedure, I'll start with as a foundation and standard the words of my Lord, so as to not inadvertently call Him a moron.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  Mark 16:16

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:19-20

*mic drop

Seriously, what more do we need?

How about some context?  Both Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are describing the last commands of Jesus to the disciples before His ascension.  Jesus commands us to baptize "all nation."  The implication here is "everyone," meaning from the littlest babies to cantankerous old dudes.

I've heard it argued that the word order is important.  "Think about it.  In Mark it clearly says 'believes and is baptized.'  You've gotta believe first, then be baptized."

Sure.  If word order mattered then in the same way it does now.

It didn't in the original Greek.  And even more damning, notice that in Matthew it says to baptize before teaching the newly baptized believer to observe all Jesus taught.  Which totally blows out of the water the notion that you have to choose to be baptized after coming to faith.

Don't get mad at me.  Those are the words of Jesus Christ blowing holes in the notion of the believer's "baptism."

So word order doesn't matter (unless context supports it), since both verses describe the exact same event in history.  Jesus was instructing His disciples on how to grow the church.  The Mark text explains what baptism does, while Matthew prescribes what to do as part of evangelism.

And it should be noted that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest of manuscripts.  The earliest we see this section referenced is in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid second century.  That doesn't mean it wasn't written by Mark, or that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it isn't Scripture.  What that presents is an interesting conundrum for the proponent of the believer's "baptism."  Justin Martyr notes it in a work dating from around the AD 160.  Assuming Mark was first written no later than AD 70, that's 100 years without a Scriptural reference telling the Church that people are supposed to believe before they are baptized.

(I think I need a second mic to drop.)

Let's move on, then, to the next in line, chronologically.  And the one that most synergists prefer.

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."  Acts 2:38-39

Isn't it great to see an oaf become eloquent?

A few verses later Luke notes that around 3000 are added to the faith.  He specifically says "souls."  Not "men," not "people," not "adults."  Souls.  A word that is feminine, and in the plural form in this usage.  No age denoted, nor any other qualifier.  So, using an argument from silence, how do we know that there weren't children included in that initial 3000 addition?

And, yes, St. Peter says "repent and be baptized" in response to the question of "what should we do."  Which makes sense.  He's speaking to adults, specifically the heads of households who would have brought their families with them to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the major holy days.  And who are the heads of households back in the day?  Men.  So we could argue that only 3000 men were baptized.  Only later verses make it clear that when the head of the household was baptized, the whole house (women, children, servants) was with him.  And Luke would have noted it, just as it is noted at the mass feeding.  "5000 men, not counting women and children."

It makes sense to say "repent and be baptized" to an adult, who has been brought to contrition by the preaching of the Law.  That's SOP.  Peter just noted how everyone's gonna die and go to hell, and they killed Jesus, the Messiah.  Their reaction makes sense.

Don't miss the last sentence, though.  "For the promise is for you and for your children..."  The Greek word there for children is τεκνον ("teknon" plural form).  Its the generic word for "kids," from newborn to teenager; basically anyone who isn't an adult.  This promise, which either means baptism, the forgiveness of sins, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, (or, more accurately, both) is for everyone.

If the promise St. Peter notes is baptisms, why is anyone opposing infant baptism?

If the promise St. Peter notes is the forgiveness of sins, then we're assuming children are sinless, which contradicts clear passages of Scripture that make it painfully obvious that all have sinned, due to being tainted by Original Sin.

If the promise St. Peter notes is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for faith in Christ, then why bother teaching children about Jesus at all?

I'm gonna stick in Acts for a moment, before tackling the words of Peter himself.  But, first, a note of caution to any who are not of an exegetical background.  The book of Acts is not a prescriptive book.  That is, Acts was not written to give us instructions on how to do, but rather an account of what was done.  It is descriptive.  "This happened, and then this happened, and then..."  Much like the books of history in the Old Testament, Acts tells us the history of the faithful.

The next two passages are in Acts and therefore descriptive.  After that, all the rest on the list are prescriptive.

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.  Acts 22:16

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.  Acts 19:5-6

In chapter 22, Paul is recounting his own conversion, citing the words of Ananias.  According to this, the early Believers thought that baptism washed away sins.  It wasn't seen as some symbol of dedication, but as an action that accomplished something.

In chapter 19, St. Paul baptized a group who had not yet been baptized.  Now, if you read just a few verses earlier, you'll see that they were baptized in the manner of John.  Which Paul basically says is nothing but a confession and absolution.  It doesn't count as an actual baptism - a baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Does that mean that St. Paul and the rest of the early Church did not use immersion in baptism?

I bet they didn't, since Luke does not note the seeking of a large enough water supply to dunk 3000 people.  Nor does it say anything about the size of the water supply available to Philip.  Just that there was water.  And if they were on a desert road, I'm willing to bet it was an oasis or a well, which means it was extremely valuable, and neither man would have dared to contaminate it by standing waist deep in the water.

Before we get to the descriptive texts, I'm going to do a "drive-by" word study on the term "baptism."  Because usually after a statement like the previous paragraph, the proponent of the believer's "baptism" will say something like "the word 'baptism' means washing by immersion in Greek."  Perhaps in ancient Greek, like what Leonidas spoke.  But in Koine Greek the verb βαπτιζω ("baptizo") does not imply immersion.  Especially in the context of Jewish ritual washing.  Now, consider, the ritual washing required flowing water.  Water doesn't flow if it is sitting in a bowl or basin for something to be dipped in.  Water must be poured over.  The word baptism in Koine Greek is the same as the word "wash" in English today.  I wash my hands, I wash my car, I wash my clothes.  Same verb, very different methods.

(Baptism VBS style?)

Now, on to St. Peter.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 3:21

Sounds like Pete was remembering his "Psalms by David" album growing up.  "Appeal to God for a good conscience" sounds like an echo of "create in me a clean heart."

Most of us who use this as a proof text simply focus on the phrase "now saves you."  And it is true that it's the operative part of the sentence.  Remember, Peter's comparing the action of baptism to the account of Noah and the flood.  We are saved from death through water.  Its not a ritual washing, like what the Jews would do, which only cleans the outside of a person, "white washing" the tomb they are, but a "renewal of a right spirit within."  This only matters in connection to the resurrection of Christ.

But St. Peter isn't the heavyweight writer of the New Testament, that would be St. Paul.  A man who was without parallel in the early Church leadership.  This guy was a leading official in the Jewish religion.  He had entire books of the Bible memorized.  That's why he was so well equipped for ministry, and for writing.  All that symbolism, all that history.  All for us to understand.

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead.  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.  Colossians 2:11-13

Paul knew his symbolisms well.  He knew that circumcision was a mark of God's salvation, both as an outward (if momentarily painful and embarrassing) sign and as a marking of a covenant with God.  And like a good teacher, he started with what his students already were familiar with and built from there.

Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel, marking them as set apart to be a sojourning holy nation among the pagans.  Likewise, baptism sets us apart as the people of God, a priesthood of all believers sojourning among the nations.  However, circumcision was only a mere sign.  It was a type and shadow of a greater thing to come.  That thing was death.  Specifically the death of Christ, which paid for our sins.  St. Paul notes that via the waters and the Word of baptism  we are connected to the atoning sacrifice.  And not just that, but the resurrection as well.  That what baptism does.

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:11

Paul also connected the act of baptism with the ritual washings that Jews, or even Gentiles, would have known.  Remember the washing of the disciple's feet?  That sort of thing is what St. Paul was using as imagery.  Read through what Jesus says to Peter when our favorite oaf objects to his Lord stooping to wash his muddy feet.  See the parallel with baptism?  This verse is what baptism does.  It washes, sanctifies (makes us holy), and justifies (makes us righteous) through the name of our Triune God.

Is there any question that baptism saves?  Sanctified and justified are the operative words, and while they go together, they are different.  Sanctification is being made holy, while justification is being made right according to the law.  You can't have one without the other.  Think of it this way: Sanctification makes us right with God, justification with our neighbor.  There is more to it than that, but thats the soundbite version.

But this is extremely straight forward.  We were baptized into Christ.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.  Galatians 3:27-29

"Aha!  See, 'there is no male and female.'  That means-"

I'm not tackling the can-o'-worms that is women's ordination.  Some other day.

But the naysayers would love to use Galatians as a "gotcha."  And at face value that makes sense.  Paul listed a bunch of stuff that we are not.  His list makes it seem like there isn't a requirement for what it takes to be a Christian.

Oh, wait, don't the opponents of infant baptism say that there are requirements a believer must achieve before being baptized?  Like being able to make a public profession of their faith during the "altar call?"

(Running out of mics here.)

The Galatians text is the "proof" that baptism is a means of grace, a Sacrament.  We are, through baptism, connected to Christ's death and resurrection.  And what does it take to be baptized?

Only men?  Nope, women get baptized too.

Gotta be Jewish first?  Nope, Gentiles welcome too.

Only free men?  Tell that to Onesimus.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:22

Oh, look, a "bazinga" text.  "With our hearts sprinkled clean..."  Yep, that's right, it says sprinkled.

(Well, too bad, you can't have any.)

No, not that kind of sprinkles.  The word in Greek is from ραντιζω (rhantizo), which means to sprinkle, to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse [definitions are from Blue Letter Bible website, though my Nestle-Aland lexicon agrees].

This word is used to describe the sprinkling of blood from a sacrifice on the altar.  So the author to the Hebrews used that term, insufficient as the shadow was, to describe baptism.  Not pour, not dunk, sprinkle.  Does that mean one is preferred?  Not really.  Though sprinkling does require the least amount of water.  Efficiency for the win.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.  1 Corinthians 10:1-4

Okay, back to St. Paul (unless you hold to the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews).  Paul's not even trying to be sneaky here.  He's straight up saying that the parting of the Red Sea was baptism.  And incredibly, there's a reference to the Lord's Supper in this passage too.  Hmm, sacraments go hand-in-hand.  Who would have thought?

Regardless of what symbol is being used, it should be clear what they are all connected to: Christ.  Without Christ, there is no baptism.  All theology is christology, after all.

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  Titus 3:5-7

How 'bout I drop the other shoe first, just for variety.  We are not saved by works.

Psst!  Infant baptism naysayers... the "believer's baptism" would be a work.

And here's another convoluted discussion that, while very worthwhile, there is not time for at the moment.  Especially since works are not "pointless," nor are they "necessary."  This, along with passages from James and Ephesians, leads to some contention (<- understatement), especially regarding a minor squabble during the 1500s in Germany.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that He has borne concerning His Son.  1 John 5:7-9

It's not just mere water, this baptism, as some who oppose it claim.  They even go so far as to claim infant baptism is a "work of man" not in the Bible.  If we are honest, the argument is which teaching is Biblical and which is an invention of man.  Often this is where people appeal to various early Church teachers.  Though, if we're honest, not a single Church Father prior to the Councils was opposed to infant baptism.  And the few who seem to be were not orthodox.  The only reason their position is noted is because they were heretics being written against, not a majority position.

But the vast majority of teachings against infant baptism originate from the time period between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment.  "Testimony of men," indeed.  Everything in the Scriptures has pointed to baptism connecting to Christ's death.  So what is to be believed?  The Scriptures, or a testimony of men?

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  Romans 6:1-4

This is more of "what baptism does" than "who is to be baptized."  But it is something to be contended with.  If we believe that the Bible is to be taken "at its word," then isn't the phrase "baptized into His death" literal?

Most who oppose infant baptism do so by making baptism nothing more than a "symbol of obedience."  They claim it hasn't any "special power" or is even necessary for salvation.

And, yet, clearly St. Paul thinks that the act of baptism directly connects a believer to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  Logically, it would follow, that without baptism, we cannot be raised from the dead.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.  Ezekiel 36:25-27

God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, is making it clear that He uses water to cleans people from their sin.  The Children of Israel experienced this when they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan River.  Notice, the word used is "sprinkle."  Not "dunk," not "immerse."  Does that prove that sprinkling is the only way?  No.  But it is interesting.

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.  Revelation 22:17

Revelation is full of symbol and metaphor, but most of the verbiage used has some connection back to something previously said.  When else have we heard of the "water of life?"

Back in John chapter 4, when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well.  The Messiah is described as the "water of life."  If baptism is what we believe it is (a means of grace for the forgiveness of sins), then we are literally receiving Christ through it.

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  Ephesians 4:4-6

There are some who think that there are "different baptisms."  And, in a way, there is.  There is a true baptism, and a false baptism.  Many who claim to be theologians will say that if a believer hasn't had a "baptism of the spirit" or if they were baptized by a Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/(anything not Non-demon) has not had a "proper baptism."

St. Paul would disagree.

So long as the baptism performed is the same baptism taught by Christ to the Apostles, then it is a baptism.  If the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken, it is a true baptism.  Anything else is not a gift of God, but an attempted work of self-righteousness.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  Ephesians 5:25-27

The operative words when baptism is "by the washing of water and the word."  You have to have both.  Not because the water is anything special, other than it was the material Christ chose.  But you must have both.

Without the water, it is not a baptism.

Without the words of Christ, it is not a baptism.

You cannot be baptized only in the name of Christ, or in the name of the "mother, daughter, and the spirit," or some other nonsense.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."  Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"  Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'  The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."  John 3:3-8

And last, but never least, is the most well known word on baptism.  Straight from the Savior's mouth.  Nicodemus is right to question how someone can be born again.  It is physically impossible.  And since it is physically impossible, the God of the Universe established an alternative method.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."  Taken at face value, it is clear that Jesus is saying that without baptism it is impossible for anyone to be in Heaven.  You must be baptized, it is a requirement.

"But what about the thief on the cross," you may ask.  Again, notice "born of water and the Spirit."  What is the "water?"  Mere dihydrogen monoxide (or, more scientifically, H2O)?  Or is it the Living Water?  Both?  Because the thief on the cross received a direct promise from the Word of God Himself that he would be in paradise that very day.

And that is probably why some in Lutheran circles consider the "thief on the cross" argument to be a red herring.  Not because it isn't a worthwhile discussion, but because it questions the majesty of God.  How?  Simply, the person who is saying that the thief on the cross is proof that infant baptism is not where faith starts is saying, ultimately, that God cannot do something.

Let that sink in.  People who deny infant baptism are placing limits on God.  We used to call that heresy.

Does that mean that God cannot save someone without baptism?  Not at all.  Because God is all-powerful.  If He wills it, it is.  And none of us are in position to question His will.  However, we are bound by what has been revealed.  He has told us that the manner of conversion is through baptism.  Why they do we say "oh, that's not how it works, we can do it this way instead."

Baptism has always been understood as grace.  Why would you deny anyone grace?  Think of it like a seat belt in a car.  If you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, why wouldn't you wear it?  And if you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, and you are wearing one, why are you saying children should not wear one?  Not just "they don't need to wear one," but "it is unethical for a child to wear one."

Let the truth behind the metaphor sink in a moment.

...

For those of you who are opposed to infant baptism, yes, I'm unapologetically calling you heretics and unchristian.  Why?  Because you are unilaterally declaring by authority you do not possess that some are to be barred from a gift of grace promised by God.  And this declaration has no basis in Scripture, reason, or even common sense.

In the words of Lutheran Satire, the position of the anabaptists, arminians, and others who deny children the gift of God are "incredibly stupid."

I'll leave you with the words of Jesus on the matter, as encouragement for those who believe in the promise of God, and as a rebuke for those who deny the words of the Savior.  (Please note, it was commonly thought of in the ancient world to consider the sea to be the gateway to hell.)

People were also bringing babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.  But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”  Luke 18:15-17

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 18:5-6

---

(FYI: I started work on this post early Lent, 2018.  My first exegetical paper at Seminary was on the baptism of Christ, and got me digging into the language and grammar of baptism in Scripture.  At some point, I'll put together a, hopefully, coherent post with those thoughts.  Until then, I'll merely post this, as is.  Most of the work was done prior to the move to seminary, so, pardon the dust.)

Some Rules Are Meant To Be Broken (or) This Title Is Also A Title Drop

If you've examined the side bar of this blog, it should be no surprise I am a fan of Rev. Jonathan Fisk's work.  His book "Broken: 7 'Christian' Rules That Every Christian Ought To Break As Often As Possible" is a great resource.

I bring this up because, as I was talking with myself the other morning (as I often do), I realized that the modern infatuation with sciences as the answer to every question in life is just a pathetic rehash of revolutionary France's attempt to make reason into a goddess to replace Jesus.

Search your feelings (and the historic records).  You know this to be true.

Anyway, I realized that Fisk already wrote about this.  So, since I'm trying to write a "fight book" for Christians, centered around the concept of the Armor of God, I thought I'd start playing with it here.  (And, to be clear, when I say "fight book," I'm taking stylistic inspiration from Hans Talhoffer.  Check it out here.)

The "rules" (or, potentially, false religions) that Fisk notes are:

1. Mysticism - the notion that “you can find God in your heart.”
2. Moralism - the notion that “you can find God in your hands.”
3. Rationalism - the notion that “you can find God with your mind.”
4. Prosperity - the notion that “you can find God in money/stuff/the world.”
5. IfWeCanJust... (Church-ology) - the notion that “you can find God in spirituality.”
6. Freedom - the notion that “you can find God in God’s absence.”
7. Counterfeit Christianity - the notion that “you can find/be God.”

So, since I want to write a resource for the one who wears the armor of God (a "knight" perhaps), how about some identifying of these seven counterfeits while I play around with this in my head.

#1 "Mysticism"
Oh, that's easy.  Its everywhere, often summed up with the advice of "follow your heart."  This where people who say "I'm not religious, I'm just spiritual" are.

#2 "Moralism"
These are people who are "righteous" based on their actions.  Frm. Pres. Carter and his rational for building houses is based on this.  This is "faith by works" territory.

#3 "Rationalism"
Science!  I said "science!" again!  "Thinkers" who use reason and logic as their foundation for everything are rationalists.  It can very quickly end up as a depressing stance.

Please note, Rationalism has a soldier named Pragmatism, and Rationalism and Mysticism have a bastard son named Education. (I hope I remembered that correctly.  I don't have the book on hand right now.  Mom's borrowing it.  Not that any of you needed to know that.)

#4 "Prosperity"
Just repeat what Mr. Shiny Teeth says "This is my..."  Or just think like Gordon Gekko.  If you believe that how well off you are in life is directly connected to your faith, well, I got bad news for you.

#5 "IfWeCanJust..."
While I stated earlier that the "not religious/just spiritual" crowd hangs out in mysticism, this is there bread and butter.  Or cracker and mustard.  "Charismatic" churches are solidly here.  They live and die based on how "spiritual" they are.  Pirate Christian Radio deals with these guys.

#6 "Freedom"
Americans love this one.  You can call this antinomianism (no-law-ism) or atheism.  Either way, the person here is claiming that they are the arbiter of truth and there is no one in higher authority.

#7 "Counterfeit"
If you are using anything other than Scripture Alone to build your faith, then you have taken hold of the forbidden fruit, believed the lies of the Devil, and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

If you want more, check out Rev. Fisk's book.  You can get it here or here.  I'll get back to this once I have something more coherent regarding the metaphorical "Christian knighthood."

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part V]

So, after four days of this, you are probably asking "why does the title say Gary Cooper and Alvin York?"  "I know Cooper was an actor, but who's York?"  "What does a 1930s Hollywood actor have to do with this?"

All good questions.  But first, let me ask you, do you know who Alvin York was?

(Big ears were so in style in 1918.  Epic 'staches a suggested option.)

If you get the chance, watch the 1941 movie "Sergeant York."  It does a good job of depicting the man's life.  It should, York was the guy who picked Gary Cooper (his favorite actor) to play him.  And, yes, he really did capture 132 Germans after having a duel with 30 machine guns.  By himself.  Captain America ain't got nothin' on York.

And while the historian in my could go on about a story like this, that's not the point this time.  Rather, I'm going to talk about how this former hellion turned pacifist was granted a Medal of Honor for killing 28 enemy and capturing 132.

Now, it has been a number of years since I watched the movie, but a few weeks ago it was on and I caught about 30 minutes of it during my lunch break.  I saw from his recruitment to the battle he became famous for.  His struggle, and answer, got me thinking about vocation.

What is vocation?

Simply put, a "vocation" is a task or duty for someone to complete.  Currently, my primary vocations include "husband," "father," "child," "sibling," and "employee."  Soon "student" will be added to the list, and after that "pastor."

Some of these duties overlap, such as husband and father.  Rarely are they mutually exclusive.  And a vocation does not have to be "religious."  I heard Luther once quoted as saying a mother changing diapers (which is part of the vocation of parent) is more "spiritual" than a monk saying vespers.

So, back to York.  He had chosen to be a pacifist, which is not required of the vocation of Christian, but his rational is completely understandable (since he converted, gave up alcohol, and went pacifist after a friend died in a duel).  However, the government chose him to become a soldier.  Within the vocation of soldier, being violent in controlled instances is the core task.

The movie depicts him in training, doing admirably.  The city kids who were recruited made fun of his accent (Tennessee) and simplistic yet direct thinking.  The instructors did too.  Until they handed him a rifle.  Most recruits had no idea how to shoot a gun.  York grew up with a muzzleloader he used to hunt with.  Hitting a bed sheet fifty yards away was too easy for him.  His skill with a gun was part of why he was promoted to corporal.

That's when he became more vocal about his desire not to kill.  His sergeant, his commanding officer, and the officer in charge of the entire unit, all spoke with him, and did so rationally, not just "you'll follow orders!" you would have expected.

Where it comes to a head is when he's given some leave before, likely, shipping out.  He is encouraged to go home and consider what to do.  While discussing if it is right for a Christian to fight in a war, he and the officers trade quotes from Scripture, and correctly, not just proof-texting.  The CO finally hands him a book on American history, specifically on the Founding Fathers, encouraging York to read it and consider.  He does.

Finally, back home, sitting alone with this history book in one hand and the Bible in the other, Alvin York is at a loss.  What is he to do?  The Christian side of him says "don't fight."  The American side of him says "defend your nation."

Which is correct?

Opening his Bible, he turns to Matthew chapter 22.  Verse 21 provided the answer.

They [the Pharisees] said, "Caesar's."  Then He [Jesus] said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

At that point, York realized that being a loyal Christian who sought to "do no harm" was not mutually exclusive with being a loyal citizen willing to go to war to defend the nation and those who are innocent.  If he had to kill, he would without seeking it on his own right, but if the opportunity never came up, then all the better.  Either way he would have done his duty, to God and country.

An antithesis to this, though still just as correct an understanding of the proper distinction between being a Christian and being a soldier, is Desmond Doss.  His story is told in the movie "Hacksaw Ridge," which tells the story of his service as an unarmed medic.  He elected to enter a combat zone unarmed, in a war against an enemy who would see no issue of killing a medic.  But his version of Christianity forbid him from carrying a weapon.  So he served during the invasion of Okinawa, some of the bloodiest fighting in all of human history.  And at no point did he draw blood.  Like York, he earned the Medal of Honor, and is the only unarmed conscientious objector to earn said medal.

So who is more correct in understanding vocation and the proper distinction of the Two Kingdoms, Alvin York or Desmond Doss?

Both.

Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's.  We are to serve within our vocations both the State and the Church.  For the one in a position of authority in the State, executing their powers is appropriate and even Godly.  Yes, even killing an enemy soldier.

Now, this does not excuse war, nor do I mean to make the implication that war is God's desire.  Far from it.  But this is a sinful world, and conflict occurs.  And, like York discovered, being a soldier does not keep one from being a faithful Christian.

See, in the end this Two Kingdoms doctrine is easy, but intricate.  The teaching is simple, but there are many moving parts, and quickly we find ourselves in a theoretical discussion.  Not that this is a bad thing, but we cannot dwell here.  That was the mistake of the monastic movement.  Vocation and the Two Kingdoms and the Estates are, in a way, a call to "put your money where your mouth is" and see your life as Christian and [fill-in-the-blank] overlap.

And if any of this discourages you, just remember the one who never struggled with this.  His vocation of King and Servant were concurrent, as were His duties as both God and Man.  As a humble servant He was nailed to the Cross.  As the creator of the universe He rose from the dead.  Christ's two natures are not mutually exclusive, but are both active now.  If He is any less of one vocation or the other He is no longer the Christ.

Just like how the Triune God is simultaneously all Three Persons; distinct and authoritative in their duties, but united in their action.  You cannot have one without the other two.

Funny how all discussions of doctrine run back to Christology and the Trinity.  Almost like they actually matter.  Like that's all where supposed to focus on anyway...

Now, on to a new topic... once I find one.  Well... that's not true.  There's plenty, just not sure if the blog, as it is right now, it the most logical format.  I'll play with them and see what happens.  Until them....

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part IV]

Now to talk about the Three Estates...

(Umm, not those three.  Those are estate cars.)

The State, the Family, and The Church.  Perhaps a picture to illustrate will help.

(Credit to Rev. Philip Hoppe, LCMS.  He put together a presentation on the Table of Duties which you can find heBlogre.  Plenty of good stuff available there.)

So, the infographic should be self-explanatory, but let's break it down a bit.

The bottom half is the "big picture" regarding God and the Church.  We, the Church, are under God's authority, and we obey and respect Him in all things.  We do this because we have been freed by His love and service.  Not necessarily reactionary, since it was not compulsory.

The top half breaks up the various authorities vested by God.  These are the Three Estates.

The Estate of the State is obvious, especially since I've already discussed it.  God has placed leaders in authority, and we as citizens are to obey and respect.  The State is armed with the Law, by which they maintain good order in civic society.

The Estate of the Church (as an organization on Earth) operates similarly.  There is a leader appointed (the pastor) who is in charge of running the group.  Not so much the "secular" side; that is, the pastor isn't called and ordained to be in charge of the upkeep of the lawn, or the picking of new carpet, or deciding if they should hire a new secretary.  Not that he shouldn't be part of those discussions, but issues such as those are technically part of the state.  The pastor leads the church regarding following the rules God has established for believers.  Remember, some laws are for all (don't murder, don't steal, etc), but some apply to the church (remember the Sabbath, etc).  The pastor is called to proclaim confession and absolution.  His weapon is not the Law, but the Gospel, which he preaches to the people so they might believe and be saved.

So, two out of three, pretty straight forward and easy to rightly divide.  The third, the Home, may seem a bit muddled.  The reason why is simple.  While the Estate of the State gets to only hold the sword of the Law, and the Estate of the Church can only grasp the sword of the Gospel, the Estate of the Home holds both because it is part of both.

(No matter what happens in my life, I fear I will never be as cool as Sir Christopher Lee dual wielding lightsabers while humming a symphonic metal song he wrote about Charlemagne.)*

But... wha... huh... didn't you say...?

Yep.  The State (as well as the Kingdom of the Left) does not use the Gospel.  And the Church (as well as the Kingdom of the Right) are not tasked with the Law.  Yet the Home gets to be both.

How?

Think of the Estate of the Home (or, as we could call it, the Family) as a bridge.  Like this one here:

On this side, we have the State - the Kingdom of the Left.
And the Estate of the State.

On this side, we find the Church - the Kingdom of the Right.

And the Estate of the Church.

And here in the middle is the Estate of the Home.

At times, the Home must use the Law (like when a child elects to hit his a sibling with a dog) and dole out punishment appropriate.  Other times, the Home uses Gospel (like when a child accidentally breaks mother's favorite knickknack) and establishes forgiveness.

Be aware, the Home is more than just the Parent-Child relationship, but also Husband-Wife, and Employer-Employee.  The Home covers the entirety of the Order of Creation, which God established in Eden.

Hence why the Estate of the Home is one of the most challenging, and at times most important.  (Not that the other two aren't important.)  The Home is where "the rubber meets the road" so to speak.  It is the practical side of this discussion.  It is the Ten Commandments and the Creeds in action.  In some ways it is a balancing act, having to determine when to use law and when to use gospel.  Each situation and scenario is different.  Part of why parenting is so difficult.

For example, I love my daughter, but if she climbs onto the dresser in the bedroom, I'm going to end up raising my voice, and possibly even disciplining her.  Out of anger?  No, out of love, and fear of her injuring herself.  Law, to be sure, but there is forgiveness too, once the lesson is made.  The gospel is without comfort if the sting of the law isn't felt.  That doesn't mean running about bashing people with the law just so we can give the gospel, but until someone comes to grips with their transgression, they will not be able to fully appreciate the grace given to them in the gospel.

(And, yes, my little girl has climbed on the dresser.  And, yes, she was instructed not to.)

But how about a more concrete example of the Two Kingdoms?  Maybe one found in a popular movie?  Perhaps finally I'll get around to exploiting the tease in the post title... tomorrow.


* Okay, so I don't actually know if he was humming a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne while on the set of Star Wars.  But I do know he actually sang a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne.  Actually, he produced four albums, and a number of other songs.  Yes, the White Wizard sang metal at age 90.  Seriously, its even on YouTube.

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part III]

By this point I've discussed the gist of the Two Kingdoms doctrine, and some examples in history to provide some background.  Now its time to examine the tools at their disposal.

The State uses the Law.

The Church uses the Gospel.

(Post is done.  Everyone go home.  Good game.)

Okay, so, maybe its a little more involved than that.  What is meant by Law and Gospel, in this context?  Lets start with the apparently more challenging one.

The Law is a very multi-faceted issue.  There are parts of it that were composed for a temporary use, while other parts have existed since before time, and a few from both categories are able to overlap, in a way.  An example, perhaps?

Killing has always been wrong.  But that statement is quite broad.  Killing anything?  Are there things we can kill?  And when?  Why?  From the "big picture" side, all forms of death are bad, this is a philosophical issue that runs consistent.  This objective truth is founded in the morality of the writer of the Law - God.  All other laws are extensions of this, influenced by the context of the Fall.

That is what makes the Law a challenge to nail down.  Is it wrong to kill?  Yes.  As a soldier who is sent to rescue POWs?  Well... no, quite the opposite, in context.  It is the vocation of the soldier to use force, even deadly force, but that does not mean he doesn't serve without sin, since he, like all of us, is sinful from birth.  Confession and absolution is still necessary.  Just because the context allows it temporally does not mean it is a "free play" existentially.

Now, ignore that cobweb riddled rabbit hole for a moment while I try to get back to the actual point.

The State's role is best summed up in Romans chapter 13.  It is the job of the State to compose rules for the safety, betterment, and even control of the earthly realm.  Things like speed limits, tax laws, building codes, TSA standards, sports regulations, website terms and conditions, etc.

This means it is not the State's job to forgive things.  If you break a law, you are due punishment.  This is appropriate.  The State is tasked with being an overlord.  It levies taxes, conducts war, and prosecutes criminals.  Is it possible for the State to go too far?  Of course.  But, as I've posted before, so long as the State is within God's established boundaries, we as Christians are to faithfully serve and follow all Biblically sound laws.  If the State exceeds its limits we are to seek out ways of bringing it back into those limits, preferably by legal means that do not require violence.

Now, for the actually challenging one.

The Church is tasked with forgiving sins, in the stead and by the command of Christ, who paid for all (ALL) transgressions.  The Church is not given the right to form rules for life now, though they are to adhere to the Law of God, summed up in the Commandments.  But the Church's primary, if not sole, role is to proclaim the Gospel.  If you are at a church that does not proclaim Christ crucified as the point of every sermon and worship service... well you're probably not at a Christian church.

And here we get to why this is the more difficult one for us.  With the State, there are rules, standards, codes by which to measure our actions by.  We can see progress and grasp how to be "better."  Its like a checklist, and we like checklists.  Being able to complete a task is very rewarding.  Even more so if it leads to something better.  That is something the Law claims to give us: a checklist of how to be a better person.  And we humans very much like that, especially us Americans.  Being able to self-justify and prove we are "worthy" is, for many of us, a driving goal in life.  But, in the grand scheme of salvation, it doesn't work this way.  The truth is completely logical and rational, yet it is exactly opposite to what we think should be "fair," and we simply can't wrap our minds around it.

What we cannot grasp is twofold.  One, the State (and by extension, the Law) cannot help us, in any way, to be a better (read: sanctified, justified) person.  Two, no matter how much we keep the Law, even if someone could be completely perfect regarding any and all aspects of the Law, our only reward ultimately is Hell.

"But if God established a law to be better, and it doesn't work that way, how do we get to heaven?"

We don't get to heaven.  We don't do anything.  We are the lifeless person drowning in the pool.  What can the drowning, unconscious man do to save himself?

The Gospel is rescue, that we are powerless to participate in.  We are passive, receiving Grace that we have neither earned nor deserved.  We deserve Hell.  Thanks be to God that Christ came and saved us from sin, death, and our own self-serving nature.

That is the Church's duty.  To proclaim the Cross and the Empty Tomb.  To give us the knowledge that we are not hopeless, but saved, which frees us to be able to attempt to adhere to the law.  We'll fail, but we are forgiven.

But where does Law and Gospel come to action?  That is what the Three Estates is all about.  Until next time...

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part II]

Okay, kiddos, lets get ready to time travel.  Please make sure your seat belts are fastened and keep your arms, legs, heads, and left rib inside the blog at all times.  If you forgot to sign the waiver... too late now.

So, historic examples of the Kingdom of the Left and the Kingdom of the Right.

• The Kingdom of Israel.
• The Roman Empire.
• The political mess we call the Middle Ages.
• (Bonus!) The, at times, ridiculous experiment in contradictions we call the United States.

First stop: Israel, whose kingdom lasted, in various forms, from 1100 BC through 586 BC.

Alright, so here's the "quick and dirty" version.  God established a covenant with Israel at Sinai.  After entering the Promised Land the nation of Israel spent quite a while conquering and reconquering the territory.  During this time they were led by judges and the priests, who spoke God's commands to them.

Finally, they requested a king, and reluctantly God gave them one, Saul.  After him came David, whose line continued to rule until Jerusalem's fall in 586.  Well, except for the northern 10 tribes, who rebelled and formed their own nation in 910.  (They'd be gone by 722.)

Israel was, initially, a kind of theocracy.  God was their king, with day-to-day political duties being handled by the Law, and by people like Moses or Joshua.  The Law, the big version that takes up most of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a combination of civic, ceremonial, and moral.  The first two were specific for the Israelites within their covenant.  The moral, the 10 Commandments, were preexisting, and are still in play.  (Not that the rest of it is/was bad, but that's a different post.)

The Two Kingdoms were (or were supposed to be) intertwined in ancient Israel.  To use the monarchial metaphor, it was a real union, as opposed to a personal union.  And so long as Israel followed God as both Lord and King, things went well, including when the kings were good (ya know, guys like David, Asa, Hezekiah).  Israel is the poster child for this concept, not so much in its actual form but in the intention.  Hence why this symbol/prototype is used in the New Testament by the likes of Paul, Peter, the write of Hebrews, and Jesus.

Next up: Rome!  The empire started in 27 BC, and ended in 395 AD (with the split), 480 AD (with the ending of the Western empire), and 1453 AD (when the Easter/Byzantine empire fell).  And, yes, the Byzantine overlaps with the Middle Ages, but that's not relevant right now.  The only Roman empire I'm concerned with at this moment is the versions from its founding to the fall of the city of Rome in 476.  And there are technically (for my purpose) two: the version founded by Julius Caesar, and the one reformed by Constantine.

In the "classic" Roman empire, the church/state dichotomy was complicated.  And I'm ignoring the pagan worship for this.  Not because it isn't significant in the empire's formation.  But because it adds complexity that isn't needed for this topic.  At least right now.  But the nice thing is the situation is easy to sum up:

"Then He [Jesus] said to them, 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.""  (Matthew 22:21.)

This point is brought up in detail by St. Paul in Romans chapter 13.  But we will dig deeper there later.  For now, the gist is that in early Rome, when the empire was still hostile toward Christians, the Church had to live both within the Kingdoms of the Left and the Right.

In many ways things got better when Constantine what at the helm, but only because the killing of Christians wasn't government sanctioned anymore.  The church had other issues on its hands, like major heresies.  You know, the ones self-proclaimed "experts" seem to think was "original Christianity" before the councils forced the church to adopt certain ideas about Jesus being God, and other controversial things that are now considered baseline.

(I shouldn't need to take the time to call these guys out, I'll save that for another day.  But if the guy you're using as a source thinks a gnostic gospel is 300+ years older than the synoptics, then he should be forced to listen to the first half of the baby back ribs song.  Check Scrubs if you don't know that one.)

And now, ladies and gentlemen, for the Medieval period!  Sometimes it is (incorrectly) called the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, this slice of time went from the 5th century (400s) through the 15th century (1400s).  Basically from the fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.

(By the way, it was Renaissance thinkers who called it the "dark" ages, to imply that they were backward in thought somehow.  Arrogant of them, but, that's for a different post.)

The Medieval period covers a lot of things.  The kingdom of Charlemagne.  The Crusades.  The forming of the Holy Roman Empire.  The Vikings.  The "classic" era of English history (here be knights in shining armor and rogues wearing tights).  The voyage of Marco Polo.  If you want a feel for the era, check out A Knight's Tale.  Anachronistic, sure, but is pretty honest with tournaments.  Otherwise, just look up Mike Loades on YouTube.  If watching a man in his 60s get knocked off a horse while sword-fighting and giggling in the dirt is your thing, you'll like his work.

The Middle Ages (and its extensions the Renaissance and the Reformation) have common "flavors."  One thing that we will focus on is the overlap of Church and State.

The Holy Roman Empire was reestablished in 962 under Otto I.  The pope crowned him, and declared him emperor of the Romans.  Why?  In part as a gambit to combat the Muslims.  Remember, at this time, the Muslim world is expanding through North Africa, and is nearing places like Spain and Greece.  That understandably scared people in Europe, the Islamic religion being irrelevant initially.  Didn't remain irrelevant, but the Crusades are not where I'll dig too much today.  Mostly because we don't have time, and I dare not dedicate that many pixels to the topic.

Crusades were called, sometimes sanctioned by the church in Rome.  Primarily for the politics first, and the faith-based reason second.  People would do good to remember that.  But, in that day and age, state and religion were not separable.

Your lord (king, duke, count, prince, etc) determined which religion you (the serf) practiced.  And in that day there was only one: Catholicism.  Well, at least until the Great Schism in 1054, which made the choice Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  But, regardless, the lord was to be a defender of the faith.  Church and State were side-by-side.  It gets muddy, though, when you head to Italy to visit the bishop of Rome.

Now, this will upset some, but if you've been reading anything here, it shouldn't surprise.  The Papacy of the Middle Ages was operating heretically.  One because it claimed to have authority to hold authority in both civic and ecumenical aspects (they've dialed this back), and have authority equal to Scripture (they still believe this).  The Pope controlled a large portion of Italy, had an army, and could decide who was to be crowned king or emperor.

Regardless of what you think of that medieval mess, the church and state were so intertwined that it never occurred to anyone to think of themselves as anyone but a Christian, which was both their faith and national identity.  In fact, national identity didn't really exist until the late 15th century.  Guys like Dr Luther had a lot of influence on the concept of national identity (both good and bad).

And now, the bonus: our modern mess, the American States that are United.

In reality, all I need to address is the whole "separation of church and state" line of the Constitution.  Only, its not in the Constitution.  Rather, the phrase is in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining the amendment granting people free practice of religion.  The founder said there is a wall separating the church and state.

You see, the letter was a response to a religious group who were worried the government would go to them and say "you need to conform to the national religion or pay a fine."  (This sort of think happened in England.  Part of why the Pilgrims left.)  They wrote to Jefferson hoping for support.  He responded with an explanation that the Constitution does not allow the State to have say in the affairs of the Church.

You hear that politicians?  "Separation of Church and State" defends the church from the state.  And before you be all like "oh, history shows us religion takes over governments" (which has happened), may I remind you what happened in Nazi Germany?  Hitler forcibly took over the churches.  That's why Christians get so upset and worried about politicians supporting things like Planned "Parenthood," insurance rules that required purchasing contraceptives, and calls for us to "tolerate" something we believe is wrong.

That's why this discussion is needed.  There is a middle ground, but getting there isn't easy.  But it requires knowing how the State and the Church have authority, and what tools are at their disposal.

Tune in tomorrow...

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part I]

Buckle up, kids, I'm going to talk about a somewhat controversial subject: the left and the right.

(cue likely assumption that I mean politics)

In case my spontaneous use of snarky Spaniards doesn't reveal I'm not talking about the political "left" and "right," then either the world is too focused on politics or I've written too much about the topic myself.

As a very wise philosopher once said: "¿Por qué no tenemos ambos?"

But seriously, I wanna talk about the left and right.

A few months ago my wife and I traveled to Denver for a conference on the Two Kingdoms doctrine and the Three Estates.

...

I can tell by the crickets that some of you are unfamiliar.  That's okay, it is a bit of inside baseball.  The short version is there are two authorities ruling this world, but in very differing ways, and there are three entities by which these authorities interact with us.

So, a primer first.  And, yes, I'm stealing/borrowing from the Steadfast Conference and Dr. Luther's Small Catechism.

First, the Two Kingdoms: The Left (State/Secular) and the Right (Church/Spiritual).

Please don't assume that when I use the terms "left" and "right" I'm talking about what Americans mean politically.  In this context left does not mean "socialist/anarchist/communist/un-American/liberal," just as right does not mean "conservative/fascist/nationalist/patriot/capitalist."  The reasons for the left/right dichotomy is much simpler.  We just don't remember it in a post-monarchy western world.

Back in the day, to sit at the king's right hand was a place of authority and power.  Often the heir apparent sat there.  It didn't mean the left was a bad position, but the symbolism of being the king's "right hand" (which was often his dominant hand) was self-evident.  If you live in an era where the sword is the sidearm of choice, where do you want your most trusted advisor and warrior to sit, to represent that he (or she, if applicable) is your most powerful asset?

Not points for guessing the obvious answer, especially since giving the obvious answer is all teaching is.  (But that's beside the point.)

When Luther used the Left and Right, he wasn't making commentary on political policies.  Rather, he was showing how God uses both the State and the Church as His emissaries.  Left and Right are merely shorthand.

So, what is the difference between the two?

Well, first, to quote Yoda, you must unlearn what you have learned (at least a little).  You will need to see things from a more historic perspective, placing yourself in previous realities, not just viewing this from the lens of 21st century America (or wherever you hail from).  Why?  Because most of us living in a post-modern reality have this idea of how Church and State don't mix and mingle.  Of how there is this idea of religious liberty and tolerance of worship styles.  Now, these are not bad, but operating under a thought process that is influenced by this understanding will have the potential to lead this discussion astray.

Now, with that in mind, we will take a trip back in time.  We'll stop in the Middle Ages, in the Roman Empire, and in the Kingdom of Israel.  Why?  To see examples from each of how the State and the Church work side by side, and even interconnect.  Whether they should or shouldn't.

But, that will have to wait until tomorrow.