Contents
The Letter to Donald Trump

Re: post on letter to Donald Trump; do you think that God extends His grace to anyone, regardless of how evil they have lived, if they humble themselves and ask Him for forgiveness before death, such as Hitler? Not that I think that Trump is anymore evil than most people, but this is a question I have always had.Dean
Dean, the answer is yes. If the repentance is genuine (meaning, God-given), then yes. Manasseh was a very wicked king. “Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 21:16). But he also repented: “Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel” (2 Chronicles 33:18).
Thank you for your open letter to the President about salvation. His recent comments about Heaven troubled me a great deal. I am no preacher, but it hurts my heart when anyone seems to be confused about salvation. I have prayed for the President in the same way I would pray for any other person, as well as in ways appropriate to pray for the most powerful figure in the world. I know he has spiritual advisors. His comments made me consider that he has not been counseled as to the real saving power of grace. Powerful people often do not have access to truth simply because their position precludes true advisement. Thank you, sir. Politics aside, the man needed to hear this. Others need to hear this. Everyone needs to hear this. You broke it down to understandable, digestible information. I consider your letter an answer to prayer.Terri
Terri, thank the Lord. Thank you.
WOW!!! I just watched your video letter to President Trump. I have never heard an explanation of true salvation in such down to earth, relatable terms, EVER! Your explanation cut through all “religiosity” and made it so easily understood that it makes me think of how we mere mortals make it seem so complicated and difficult.
I forwarded your message to my small prayer group and asked them to share it with their saved and unsaved friends. Please pray with me that your message reaches far beyond President Trump, around the world to every ear. It is a powerful message.
Thank youMark
Mark, thank you very much.
Vanity or Not?
Any thoughts on how we should balance physical vanity, with being presentable and honoring God through technology in our appearance. One end of the spectrum may be foolish, in which a monk becomes unkempt in an “ash on the head” sort of way, and the other end may be injections and the sort. I’m asking because my pastor(who I have every reason to respect and trust) recently got some hair treatment done. Maybe it’s just back to the heart of the matter . . .Logan
Logan. provided we are not talking about any treatments that are outlandish, this is a question that boils down to what the personal motives are. And those are hard for outsiders to determine.
Don’t Overthink It
I’m a young man that dearly struggles with my own internal thoughts and intentions. Essentially which parts of my brain genuinely love the things of God and which of them are filled with ‘false humility’? “Maybe I’m writing Doug so as to seem pious . . . Oh how mature of me to notice my own struggle with this” . . . You can see how this devolves further. Any resources would really help, thanks so much.L
L, the first step is to learn how to second guess the second guessing.
Fear of Woman
For context, I’m married 24 years with two daughters age 17 and 16.
I had a comment about wives in the church. I study the Bible most days with my wife and daughters, and they had questions about what it means that women should ask their husbands questions at home rather than in the church (1 Cor. 14:35). This is commonly used to defend the belief women shouldn’t lead in the church, but I believe there is an additional reason. Bouncing off you out of great respect, as I certainly do not want to be in error.
I believe most Christian men, including pastors. have a natural instinct to protect women. I also believe many pastors are frightened of women. It is easy to admonish husbands, and doing so in front of smiling and nodding wives feels heroic. Meanwhile, it is very difficult, even dangerous, to minister to women. Many caring pastors inadvertently sow marital strife by reflexively encouraging wives and undercutting the husband. Then they expect the husbands dealing with an odious wife to lead and minister to her, having just made it more difficult for him to do so (Prov 30:23).
My pastor recently preached on the Proverbs 31 woman. Not to be too hard on him, but he was understandably nervous and glossed over the parts that women do not like to hear. He then pivoted, struck a heroic pose, and said “now for the verses men don’t like to talk about!” He then proceeded to preach on the verses that praise virtuous women for being trustworthy and honored, but framed these as commandments to men to trust and honor their wives. He’s a good guy and fairly new, and I am sympathetic to the tension he felt.
Your closest article I know of is “Fear of women brings two or three snares,” apologies if I missed others. As my daughters near the age to begin courting for marriage, I counsel them that they should never let anyone sow strife with their future husbands, including their pastors. I just do not want to mislead them.
God bless.H
H, it seems to me that you are seeing something that is actually going on out there in the world. This problem really is a thing.
Porn and Men With a Deeper Problem
I watched your video on dealing with porn by having young men get married. You mentioned that there is a 5% with this problem that should not get married. What are the characteristics of a man that is of this 5%, and what should he do exactly to change?Kurosaki
Kurosaki, the characteristics would be things like contempt for women generally, terrible relationship with parents, especially mom, things in that category.
Argumentative Imagination
I recently read Holly Ordway’s book “Apologetics and the Christian Imagination” based on a recommendation I heard from your pal Glenn Sunshine. Sunshine has been saying for a while that we need to focus more on a robust apologetic of the imagination, in addition to the more traditional “reason-based” apologetics most of us are used to. I think there is something to this. The kind of strict materialistic atheism that trad apologetics is excellent at dismantling seems to be shrinking, and in its place, a swell of paganism in its various forms.
I think the reason under this is the meaning desert materialism has created, because of its tendency to drain the life-giving meaning out of everything it contacts. Traditional apologetics was very powerful against this old foe. But in this new meaning desert, I wonder if the pristine reasoning of that tool is as useful as it once was. Or maybe there is work that needs to be done on the imagination before the reason side of things can be addressed? What are your thoughts on an apologetic of the imagination? Would you consider this a formal approach that can be outlined, or more of a manner in which apologetics is approached?
Thanks.Tim
Tim, I think there is something to this. I believe that there will always be a central place for reason-based apologetics, but one of the things that reason should teach us is that reason isn’t everything.
Where Should One Be Willing to Speak?
What is your policy for the conferences you take speaking engagements at? Would you speak where a disqualified pastor speaks? Where women pastors speak? Where NAR prophets speak? Where a Muslim spoke?
Does the fact it is a “Christian” conference versus a conservative conference change your approach?
Obviously you can read through the lines here and know that this stems from Driscoll’s inclusion in a conference you are speaking at. But I do not need you to address Mark.
Thank you.Jonathan
Jonathan, the central thing is that the organizers not place any restrictions on what I may say. If someone else at the conference presents a problem, I should be free to say so.
Are Two Services Bad?
So our church just built a new building a few years ago, but the increase in attendance we have been blessed with since then already has us bursting at the seams. Rumors are swirling that the pastors may propose starting a second service on Sunday mornings in order to deal with this influx.
I don’t know how I feel about this. I have read “One Assembly” by Jonathan Leeman and have always appreciated Mark Dever’s position on the topic, but I am unsure . . . is this worth being worried about? Can this be a reason to leave a church? Or am I (and Mr. Leeman) making a mountain out of a mole hill?Dwight
Dwight, as it happens, this coming Saturday I will be posting a sermon outline that deals with just such problems. Stay tuned. But I hope it is not a problem because we are currently in three services.
Your Children’s Children
I saw I believe in your interview with Tucker Carlson that all of your kids and 23 grandkids are saved. I grew up evangelical and like 85% of the kids I knew went into dark territory. What’s the keys of success in this current culture to having kids grow up and stay the course?Joshua
Joshua, this is a huge question, but the heart of it is this. The parental task is to instruct covenant children on how to believe, but instead, in the grip of fastidious pietism, we teach then how to doubt. “I love Jesus!” “Well, we’ll see about that.”
Pastoring Through Persecution
I hope this note finds you well. Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I pastor a new church plant with the hopes of one day joining the CREC.
I want to begin by expressing my deep gratitude for your ministry. Over the years, your teaching, writing, and pastoral faithfulness have shaped me and those in our church more than you know. You have been, from afar, a father in the faith—modeling a sturdy, joyful obedience to Christ that I earnestly desire to imitate. Your work has helped me see that unwavering courage and optimistic cheerfulness are not opposites but companions when Christ is Lord over all. For that, I thank you sincerely.
I’m writing because I would deeply value your wisdom in a situation unfolding within our church. One of our members, who is a Captain that serves in the United States National Guard, as an OIC (Officer in Charge) is now facing serious persecution in his service. He has graciously but firmly refused to participate in a mandatory sexual harassment training that explicitly affirms homosexuality and transgender ideology, explaining that his Christian convictions will not allow him to affirm what God calls sin.
As a result, an official investigation has been launched, one that has already moved beyond his immediate command and now involves generals within the National Guard. The situation has become increasingly tense, with the real possibility of severe disciplinary action or discharge. (I have attached two documents below showing the Counseling form against Captain Andrew Garza as well as His rebuttal)
As his pastor, I want to shepherd him and his family faithfully, helping him to be both steadfast and gracious, courageous without being quarrelsome. But I also want to guide our church in standing with him rightly, with wisdom and biblical clarity.
If you have any counsel or practical wisdom for navigating such situations, whether in terms of pastoral care or preparing for potential legal fallout, I would be deeply grateful.
Thank you again for your faithfulness and for the joy with which you’ve taught so many of us to fight the good fight. I count it a privilege to be one of your students from afar.
In Christ, with gratitude and respect,Garrett
Garrett, there are two things. The first is to counsel him on a personal level, on how to count it all joy. Jesus says that when all kinds of things are thrown at you, including dead cats, in that day, He says, rejoice and be exceedingly glad. The second is more practical. Get as many eyes on this as you can. This letter is a good start. Make sure that what the generals do, they do it in the broad light of day.
An Electoral Dilemma
I’m a 19-year-old Christian facing a moral dilemma with the upcoming elections and wanted your biblical perspective.
A family friend of mine—let’s call her “Susie”—is running as the Republican candidate for delegate in my district here in Virginia. She’s a godly wife and mother of several young children. I struggle with the fact that she has chosen to step away from her home and children during their most formative years to serve in public office. My conviction is that her primary responsibility during this season should be to her family, not the legislature.
Earlier in the race, I voted for her Republican opponent for that very reason. Now, it’s down to her and a Democratic opponent. I disagree strongly with the Democratic platform and don’t want to support that direction for the state, nor for our country. But I also have trouble with voting for someone who, in my view, is neglecting an important biblical role. If I abstain, it effectively benefits the Democrat party.
I want to handle this faithfully and not just emotionally. Could you offer biblical counsel on how to approach this kind of decision?
Thank you for your time and wisdom.Lee
Lee, you might well be right about the personal choices she is making. That is a good possibility. But that is not your circus, not your monkeys. You don’t have enough info to guide her. So you make your decision on the basis of what is your responsibility.
New Problems in the Realm of Fidelity
I hope you’re doing well. I’m listening to Fidelity, merely because of all of the hubbub regarding one of the paragraphs that’s been floating around on the internet. I find the book totally fine and reasonable, considering the context of what’s going on in the book, and its intention. My question doesn’t revolve around that, as I found myself, as usual, satisfied with researching for myself one of your quotes taken out of context. My actual question lies is in the realm of the book itself, the topic, and its intended audience. Since you wrote it, a lot of course happened within the realm of, particularly how it relates to the opposite gender, the females. I would be very interested if you already have written a book on this topic. If so, could you please point me in that direction? If not, would you ever consider writing a book on that? I think what’s most pernicious is the realm of, especially, emotional manipulation for women through romance novels, smut novels, movies, and the culture at large.
I also find the celibacy chapter quite oddly amusing. I grew up during an era where singleness in the church is preferred, especially as it relates to having free labor in a church. Unfortunately, a lot of ladies like me felt like they had to control the guys to ask them out because so many guys were afraid of rejection, or simply felt as though they had far too many females from whom they can choose in the realm of the church. As a result, lots and lots of singles in the church ended up not getting married until their mid to late 30s. I was wondering if you had any comments on that in a book somewhere? It feels like we flipped the exact opposite direction.
Let me know!O.N.
O.N. on relationships, I have written two books—Get the Guy and Get the Girl. As for the other stuff, you are quite right that the sexual revolution has metastasized since I wrote Fidelity, and there does need to be something written for women.
Conversions as the Base Line
I appreciated your recent article about “Big God Theology,” and admit I am extremely sympathetic to your perspective, that Christ being Lord also means Lord of our culture and politics. I am a bit dumbfounded by those who would contend with you on that basic principle. But I am still hesitant at one point and would appreciate your thoughts . . . I can perhaps best explain by invoking Lewis. Regarding education, he wrote:
“I do not, therefore, think that our hope of re-baptizing England lies in trying to ‘get at’ the schools. Education is not in that sense a key position. To convert one’s adult neighbor and one’s adolescent neighbor (just free from the school) is the practical thing . . . if you make the adults of today Christian, the children of tomorrow will receive a Christian education.”
Lewis didn’t in the least perceive the schools as a “no-fly” zone when it came to seeing Christianity pervasively infiltrate England’s schools, of course . . . indeed he wanted to see that very thing . . . he just thought that working to “get our teeth into the schools” was the wrong way to go about it. His thought process seems applicable to me as to how we ought to go about getting Christianity back into society, culture, and politics as a whole. Similarly, If I might paraphrase Lewis, it seems that “our hope of re-baptizing America lies not in trying to ‘get at’ the government or culture . . . To convert one’s adult neighbor and one’s adolescent neighbor is the practical thing . . . for if we make the adults of today Christian, the children of tomorrow will vote for and work to establish a Christian nation.” Especially given our democratic government: we don’t need to convince any particular king or leader to enact laws in submission to Christ… we need to (more or less) convince 51% of the population.
I certainly don’t consider culture and politics to be a “no-fly” zone in the least . . . but I conceive of them as being like Berlin in WWII before we’ve yet made a successful landing at Normandy . . . Absolutely, Berlin needs to be in our minds as the ultimate objective, but I am just hesitant about efforts that focus on it as the primary focus of our immediate efforts.
I mention this as I wonder if I’m alone or if there are many others who think the way I do, not sold on the effort being dedicated to what is coined “Christian Nationalism”—not because I disagree with the ultimate objective, but only as it doesn’t seem the best place at present to direct our efforts?Daniel
Daniel, yes. But it needs to come from both directions. We cannot rely on “just conversions” and it will not do to rely on “leadership.” And different people are called to different tasks—the evangelists to one task, and the statesman to another.
I have been following your work for about two years and have found it deeply enriching. I’m writing to ask for your guidance on navigating a growing misalignment between my personal convictions and my local church’s doctrine. Week by week, I find myself increasingly drawn toward paedobaptism, and I’m also struggling with our church’s emphasis on our children’s program. A few other things as well.
What makes this particularly challenging is that I previously served as a pastor at this church. I stepped back from that role after recognizing my own lack of qualifications due to being a recent convert, not leading my life effectively or my families . Also, due to some structural issues within the church that had led to my ordination in the first place. This history adds a layer of complexity to my current situation. Plus all the deep relationships we have.
I don’t want to be divisive, yet I find myself genuinely divided on significant matters of doctrine. I know your own journey has included doctrinal shifts and the challenge of navigating them well. I would be grateful to hear how you approached those transitions.
Thank you for considering my question.MRF
MRF, my only advice would be not to draw it out once you see that separation is inevitable. Until then, labor for peace.
I have a question on the danger of Roman Catholicism upon these United States of America. My understanding is that the founding, experience, and prosperity of the US is good fruit that grows from the Protestant Reformation and the English Reformation. Today, I see very favorable attitudes towards Rome and was curious how you see the influence of Catholicism on our country. I came across these words by Ryle in Holiness:
“The consequences of this changed tone of feeling (acceptance of Rome), I am bold to say, will be most disastrous and mischievous, unless it can be checked. Once let popery get her foot again on the neck of England and there will be an end of all our national greatness!…I beseech you to realize the painful fact that the Protestantism of this country is gradually ebbing away, and I entreat you, as Christians and patriots to resist the growing tendency to forget the blessings of the English Reformation…What makes Scotland, the United States, and our own beloved England the powerful, prosperous countries they are, and I pray God they may long continue? I answer, unhesitatingly, Protestantism, a free Bible, and the principles of the Reformation.”
As the thought sinks in, my new question is if the strongholds of Marxism, socialism, postmodern sexuality, feminism, egalitarianism, etc. are the main battlefields. Is the greater threat Catholicism? If the West and it’s morals and prosperity flow out of the Protestant recovery of the true gospel and the break with Rome, how much can Rome be a help? We hear that Islam cannot be reconciled to Western ideas and ways of life. Can Catholicism?
Peace,Charles
Charles, there is more than one way to lose national greatness, and the UK has found one of them without any help from Rome. So no, Rome is a problem, but by no means the greatest one.
Candace
This post about Candance Owens has brought me relief.
I am a “new born” Christian. Before I accepted Christ, I went to a local church to observe. I sat in the back watching people singing loud, swaying, and raising their arms. Then in the sermon the pastor would say things like “God wants our love, and to be worshipped.” In my friend circle, my Christian friends kept saying “I love God so much,”
This worshipping was very odd for me. Being 35 at the time, I was a bystander watching this, trying to understand…
I kept asking myself “Why does God want to be worshipped?” Seemed kind of petty and weird (from a secular mindset).
Yet Jesus says “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” (KJV Matthew 22:37) .
Then you go to the Old Testament, it’s the first thing God says to do, ” Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (KJV Exodus 20:3)
I struggled with this question for months, while going to church, watching, listening, and reading the Bible.
Then it hit me.
Humans naturally worship. We worship music, famous people, money, etc. etc., God knew this about us, He knew that if we focus on Him first, we can have a better life.
Since the killing of Charlie Kirk, we have had the grandest opportunity to come together, which many of us did.
What also happened is we got to see our friends, families, and favorite commentors show who they really worshipped.
When Candance did her first post, I was so disturbed by it. It has hurt me for weeks. Seeing other people come to her defense, watching podcasters call her out, then redact because “she was right,” it’s hurt my inner being knowing we have left the focus of connecting, of praying for the family, and instead talk about Candance Owen’s opinion and her discoveries.
I really believe the conspiracy of Israel is Candance’s golden calf. This is her day job, she really wants to get to the bottom of things, but to not even wait until her friend was buried to bring up her ideas, is disheartening and I lost all of my respect for her.
If anything else, maybe her golden calf is “being right,” she must spend hours beyond hours digging for “connections” to create the story that makes sense to her.
What if that time was spent on the word of the Lord? What if that time was spent volunteering at a women’s homeless shelter? What if that time was spent building a garden to feed her family?
This is a question we can all ask ourselves. What are we worshipping that isn’t God? What are we spending hours looking into? Are we spending hours into something, yet we don’t know how to treat our spouse correctly?
I want to thank Douglas for putting things into words I couldn’t.
Sincerely,SB
SB, thank you. Glad it was a help.
What About Hindu Nationalism?
I’m a listener/follower from Bangalore, India.
My question is in relation to your recent interview with Ross Douthat on ‘Interesting Times’.
The Christian Nationalism that you espouse forbids the ‘taunting’ of the Christian majority by other religions—in your ideal Christian state, the 90-ft Hindu statue in Texas would not be a possibility, let alone being built.
That does make sense to me. However, as I thought about the implications of that kind of religious nationalism in the current context here in India, it seems to me that the steps taken by Hindu Nationalists to preserve their culture and heritage would be somewhat justified.
Those steps include an Anti-Conversion Law (already implemented by several states) making it a criminal offence to convert someone from one faith to another by coercion/force, monetary gain or for other benefits. Now due to this law, several pastors and missionaries, especially in North India, have been arrested, because they’ve led non-believers to faith. The worst part is that the burden of proof lies on the accused, to show that he/she didn’t play a role in the conversion. As a result, public outreach activities have come to a standstill.
If your brand of Christian Nationalism was extended to Hindu Nationalism, it would seem that they are in they right to squash any attempts by Christians to publicly proclaim the Gospel, because such proclamation would be a ‘taunt’ to their majority religion. Despite the fact that the Indian Constitution is supposed to guarantee every citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate a religion of their choice.
Among right-wing groups, there is also a large and growing undercurrent of the thought that if one isn’t Hindu, one isn’t Indian.
As an Indian Christian, it seems hypocritical to me to vouch for your brand of Christian Nationalism, and yet feel angered and frustrated when that same idea and methodology is being used by the Hindu right-wing majority to persecute and oppress my brothers and sisters across the country.
Am I right in calling myself a hypocrite? How should Christians in non-Christian majority countries think of Nationalism?Jonathan
Jonathan, this is going to sound strange at first, but meditate on it. There is no level playing field when it comes to foundational truth claims. Jesus gets to call the Pharisees whited tombs while they don’t get to call Him glutton or drunkard. That is not unfair because He was right. So if India outlawed all missionary work, we would send missionaries anyway.
Translation Question
Your writings and other works published through Canon Press have been a tremendous blessing for myself and my family, especially those books on marriage and the covenant household. Do you know if any of Canon’s published works have been translated into Turkish, and if so, where might I find those? Asking for a friend.Will
Will, there have been numerous translations, but Turkish is not one of them. Sorry.
Lest Satan Tempt You
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out because I’m seeking some biblical wisdom and counsel regarding intimacy and self-control within marriage.
My wife and I love the Lord and are striving to walk faithfully as husband and wife. We have been blessed with six children and believe that our family is complete. Because of medical limitations, both my wife and I are unable to undergo permanent procedures at this time, and we do not use birth control. So, our family planning requires careful self-control and communication as a couple.
As we’ve discussed this together, something has become more clear: my wife has a very high sexual desire [and] her thoughts and desire are only for me, which I’m thankful for, but it’s frequent and strong. While our intimacy is healthy, we’re also aware that we may need to practice seasons of restraint as part of family planning.
My question is: Can an intense sexual desire within marriage ever cross into sin, or become something we need to spiritually guard and steward more intentionally? I want to lead our marriage well, honor God in this area, and not place unnecessary burdens on my wife either.
Thank you for your time, wisdom, and faithfulness in shepherding. I trust your counsel and biblical perspective.
In Christ,Isaiah
Isaiah, when Paul talks about this, he talks about separating briefly and by mutual consent. It sounds like you have that part down. When he says not to go too long “lest Satan tempt you,” I believe he is talking about a spouse’s sexual attention wandering off somewhere else. I don’t think it is sin to want your spouse “too much.”


MRF, if you’re thinking seriously about infant baptism, I’d love to generate some interaction over this: https://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/a-question-for-baptists-answered/ .
Ryle in Knots Untied on Regeneration…I gotta get back to work.
Well, since we’re arguing this way instead of interacting on the arguments of the piece itself, I’ll see your Ryle (whom I love, his heart was in the right place, a true gospel man), and raise you a John Owen on Hebrews chapter 8 and the New Covenant. (The fact that Owen never renounced paedobaptism (though he never explained how he reconciled it with his writings on the New Covenant – a fact that Baptists in his own day remarked upno) – makes it all the more powerful).
Paedo, credo, PlayDoh, sado! Too often theological gnats at which to strain, perhaps in an effort to assemble a basket of minor distinctives on which to differentiate yet another unnecessary denomination that further divides Christians. I realize this comment is on the cynical side, and that these kinds of subjects are a “gnatural” thing on which to focus when people are interested in finding controversies to stir up, but goodness! How many denominations already exist based solely on baptismal issues? Dozens? Enough already… That said, let me be clear that I’m grateful for most of the content on this site.… Read more »
I think in essence there are 3 varieties of water baptism. Believer’s baptism requiring a confession of faith in Christ. The baptism of the infant children of believers. The general baptism of infants by the older institutional churches whereby the child is made regenerate. The first two can be the legitimate object of discussion between genuine Christian believers, and it ought not necessarily entail the breaking off of friendship and fellowship. The third is little more than superstition, a substitute for faith in Christ, and something that has deceived multitudes into thinking they are Christian when they are not. Now… Read more »
Yes, that’s a bit cynical. Everyone who has children has to make an actual decision about what God said baptism is, and whether they’re either obeying him by baptising their infants, or whether they’re inventing a new ordinance and commandment that the Bible does not contain.
Entirely reasonable point.
And, a thought on that: since it’s paedo that is hotly debated and biblically uncertain, and since no one debates the virtues of credo, go with credo as the safe bet and do it in faith. Betcha God will be OK with that.
Well since in Acts it was hotly debated whether you could eat unclean animals you should just not (see acts 10)
The New Testament does teach that in general if you’re unsure about an action, then you should refrain from that action, because “whatever does not come from faith is sin”.
I’m pretty much with you. An ordinance which is supposed to be something every set of Christian parents, everywhere, ever, is intended to uphold, would be expected to be something spelled out with sufficient clarity. The fact that no explicit argument is made for it anywhere in Scripture, and that the theological arguments that people have made for it are dubious and controverted, means that the bar has not been met.
“Here’s a way to summarize the historical issues the Baptist faces if he wants to argue the apostolic and early church practiced professor’s baptism only: He has to explain why discontinuity in the NT did not create a controversy. Children had always been included in God’s covenants, they are suddenly excluded, and there is not a trace of discussion or controversy about it in the NT. Is that plausible? Not a single apostle thought to make a defense of this change? Jewish Christians never questioned it?” This reminds me of a clip I saw of a sermon by Jeff Durbin… Read more »
We are not to baptize the nations, we are to go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing and teaching them.
Since we are not red letter Christians our basis for “adding” to Jesus’ command is what his apostles did in response to His command, which was proclaim the gospel to hearers and baptize believers.
None of us think baptism is an empty gesture. What is the meaning of it, the point, (besides obedience to our Lord’s commandment), and why do you think it is that?
You beat me to it by few minutes! It is disciples who are baptised, who have called out of the nations.
The thought of whole nations repenting and believing is a noble one, but not one that imo is implied by the great commission.
“The thought of whole nations repenting and believing is a noble one, but not one that imo is implied by the great commission.”
I might tell my children to go and conquer the wilds in our backyard. They wouldn’t need to literally establish national borders complete with a flag and a constitution in order to obey the command.
Nevertheless, they would still be required to obey the obvious point of such a command.
You can throw psalm 22 in there as well
So then how do we make disciples if we can’t teach them?
On the meaning of the Great Commission, and its corruption by Christian Nationalists: https://mothwo.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-meaning-of-great-commission.html
I always think the term ‘Christian nationalism’ is strange, because on this side of the Pond nationalism has become something of a dirty word as it is associated with endless conflicts in which states sought to further their own interests at the expense of others, often violently.
It was hardly loving your neighbour as yourself writ large!
“we are to go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing and teaching them.” “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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” (ESV) “baptizing them” Who is “them”? Basic grammar, the nations. Even if you want to say its the disciples, the disciples themselves were also referring to the nations. I was objectively not incorrect. Contrary to your opening statement, you are explicitly told to baptize the nations. “Since we are not… Read more »
There is a difference between saying “baptize the nations” and “make disciples of the nations…baptizing..and teaching”. Your version leaves something out of the instructions, something that matters. Nations aren’t disciples, men and women are. I’m honestly not sure what you’re thinking baptize the nations means. You can’t baptize nations without baptizing people. Generally? All individuals in every nation? Including the known unbelieving and the unwilling? Short of force, which has been done (and maybe you’re okay with?), how would we go about doing that? I do think the – make no mistake not-sinless – apostles did, remembering Jesus teaching, and… Read more »
You say baptize believers but how many actual baptisms are there in acts? How many more must have been done that were not recorded and even then in several of the accounts they easily could have baptized children.
There are no baptisms in Acts where the text says there were babies baptised. There may have been youngish children but to say babies were involved is an argument from silence and reading back into scripture a practice that came later.
You would also expect some apostolic explanation as to why babies should be baptised, and what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve.
I didn’t say they did, I said they easily could have. There are many more baptisms than those recorded in acts and several of those refer to groups of people or households.
my point was that when he says the apostles baptized believers he is assuming what we are arguing over.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to claim only believers were baptised in Acts, as those who were baptised heard the word and rejoiced in it.
A very long time ago I did an exhaustive study of baptism in the NT, and as far as I remember it was always or nearly always mentioned in connection with those who believe.
Acts 16- two explicit household baptisms.
Now maybe all of them were older and professed Christ, but at the very least it is possible.
If you are a Paedocommunionist, it admits them to the Lord’s Table. If you are a credocommunionist, it is a sign of God’s promise. I think If you are a paedobaptist, it is a sign of your faith. Right? my reasoning of the first two is very similar, there are different arguments but this one makes sense. We believe that God is the one who is in charge of it all, he has made numerous promises regarding believers children, and as such we baptize them as a sign of that promise. If it is a believers baptism by us, we… Read more »
Scribbler, Thanks. The reason I ask is, it largely comes down to what we think baptism means/does, and either credobaptism or paedobaptism can make sense depending on how we answer the question. That is my point in asking. I think it can help clarify our thinking on the subject, even if it does not resolve the debate. Of course, there is the danger of assuming a meaning first and then “finding” it in the scriptures, but we do want to look to scripture. I think you might have one thing above flipped around. For some paedobaptists including among the reformed,… Read more »
> “For credobaptists it is a sign and statement of your (the one being baptized) faith.” Though it’s common to read this way of expressing things when reading paedobaptist literature, this is not actually an accurate summary of how Reformed Baptist, i.e. Covenant-aware Baptists, writers on baptism have expressed their beliefs. For the Reformed Baptist, a baptism is valid when the promise has been actualised in the life of the baptisee. It is the coming together of sign and reality. The two are not to be played off against eachother as if we were meant to choose. Baptism expressed God’s… Read more »
Thank you. I am not deeply familiar with Reformed Baptist doctrine. Reformed Baptists are a minority among credobaptists (which fact in itself of course does not make them wrong) and, as you note, the view of baptism I expressed is the common one among credobaptists.
Quite so – unfortunately.
The covenantal view was the uniform view amongst modern Baptists when they began to emerge in the early 1600s. For anyone who wants to understand the particular distinctives of Reformed Baptist beliefs about the covenant in distinction to Reformed paedobaptists, then this is an excellent book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QZNH38S
It covers the mainstream of Reformed paedobaptism, with the various streams found therein. Historical aberrations which generally paedobaptists have considered either heretical or adjacent to heresy, such as the Federal Vision, are only lightly touched upon.
Thank, I typed the wrong word, number three should have been credobaptist
Jesus was right with the Father from conception onward. If Adam and Eve hadn’t fallen, so would their children have been, I suppose. So preborns right with God is possible at least in principle, and happened once that we know of, tho they cannot speak. Elisabeth, full of the Holy Ghost, said John Baptist leapt in her womb for joy at hearing Mary’s voice. David: from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Very young children can be right with God. Salvation takes faith. Are preborns and newborns (if saved) saved by faith, or some other way? If saved… Read more »
Timothy also who knew the scriptures from infancy.
Faith Hope and Love.
We hope that our children are saved, having faith in the promises of God that they will, and love them enough not to assume they are unable to be saved.
Amongst just *Reformed* paedobaptists, there is a huge variety of reasoning given for paedobaptism, and generally one man’s reasoning disagrees over fundamental points with his neighbour’s. This leaves us with the interesting outcome that, if we suppose paedobaptism to be the clear teaching of the Bible, then this clarity extends only the bare fact of paedobaptism, and nothing more. *Why* it’s being done is completely unclear – to paedobaptists (considered as a group). Whichever the passages are that make paedobaptism clear to them, those passages also managed to make the reasons for paedobaptism completely unclear to them. Of course, each… Read more »
I will note this is the same argument that full preterists make.
It also applies the other way, I have heard it argued both that we shouldn’t baptize babies because all babies are saved so we don’t need to and should thus err on the side of caution and also that if God wanted them in heaven he would let them live long enough to have faith as an adult.
You’ll have to elaborate on that for me, since I couldn’t work out the analogy. In some sense full preterists (people who teach the heretical idea that Christ has already returned, the resurrection has happened and we’re living in the new heavens and the new earth now) argue analogously against someone – presumably partial preterists (people who believe that there are some significant NT prophecies that are now fulfilled, but definitely not the ones mentioned above). What is the analogy? That partial preterists claim that it’s clear that there are unfulfilled prophecies, but it’s not clear which ones? I don’t… Read more »
The issue with full preterists is they deny the return of Jesus, the final judgement, and some even the bodily resurrection. (Some would agree but then say that these aren’t mentioned in scripture). They use the argument that since partial preterists disagree on which passages indicate these haven’t happened, that means all of them have happened because there is no clear agreed upon verse.
my point was that argument from your opponents disagreement doesn’t refute the point, otherwise the full preterists would be right.
My other point was that credobaptists are also split on their arguments and verses.
In regard to the fundamentals of infant baptism being unclear and contradictory by various Reformed authors:
No examples are given, so it’s hard to believe this assertion.
Further, “Reformed” confessions are authoritative, not the detailed discussions and biblical interpretations of divines. Those confessions are notably unified in the basis for paedobaptism: children of believers are members of the covenant along with their parents. The Second Helvetic, the Heidelberg, the Belgic, and the Westminster specifically refer to the covenant. The Scots and Gallican refer simply to the parental relation.
Not much of a huge variety.
so far, I’m not trying to persuade you with the above remark, I’m remarking on something that’s easily enough verifiable if you got and buy several books on infant baptism from different Reformed authors and read them all carefully (as I did when working through the issue). If you do want to read what I’d write if I was trying to make a careful argument to persuade you and have some detailed interaction on that, then that is at the top of this thread. Though, the book mentioned above – https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QZNH38S – whilst not written by a paedobaptist but by… Read more »
Where does the NT itself say the infant children of believers are in the new covenant?
I would have thought that necessitated them being born again/saved, and that doesn’t happen until they put their faith in Christ.
These old confessions of faith may be interesting, but they are not scripture and therefore not authoritative unless they agree with scripture.
“For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” 1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.7.14.ESV The word translated holy (meaning set apart) is used as a description of those within the covenant. what if they don’t ever have a “put your faith in Christ” moment. As reformed Calvinists, faith isn’t anything you do, you don’t pray a prayer and become saved, so if Timothy, David, etc. all had faith from birth why is it also… Read more »
The unbelieving spouse is consecrated by the believing spouse, but Paul goes on to say this does not mean they will necessarily ever be saved. So the idea of being set apart does not mean such a person, whether adult or child, is or will be saved. There is no hint of this holy status being the result of baptism, the context is marriage. The old Mosaic covenant was entered by physical birth, and had a sign. The new covenant is entered by spiritual birth and has no sign. Faith is the mode of entry, and I agree fairly young… Read more »
And I don’t hold that he was saying they wouldn’t, he said that you don’t know after saying stay if you can and leave if they want a divorce. I think he means that you shouldn’t doubt that they may be saved if they stay, or stress because they will leave, because it is all in the hands of God. I am not saying the child is guaranteed to be saved however they are a part of the covenant. neither will all who profess Christ be saved. how would one tell whether an infant believes, we know they can, so… Read more »
I don’t see how infants in the sense of babies could ever exercise faith. With that in mind how could they be members of the covenant – after all the new covenant is different and better than the old.
I suspect much of the difference of view stems from you being into reformed theology where salvation was decided before the foundation of the world and faith is a gift of God to receive it.
If that is the presupposition then it doesn’t matter when you administer baptism, a child’s faith and salvation is guaranteed from birth.
If that is the presupposition, it is equally possible the child’s lack of faith and damnation could have been guaranteed from birth. In that case I would think it would still make sense to wait until you have some indication (even if you believe you can’t know for sure) that faith was given and therefore this person is one of the elect.
I don’t think faith is a gift, the gift of Eph 2 : 8 is either salvation or the whole package of ‘saved by grace through faith’.
Election/choosing in the bible as I understand it is never to salvation, but always to service or the character needed for service.
It follows from this that God has not chosen some to be lost or passed by by as though salvation were a predestined matter.
I am aware these remarks could generate a comments thread that lasts for 400 years!
See John the Baptist leaping in his mother’s womb, and note that there is a difference between being in the covenant and being saved.
John would have been born under the old covenant. His leaping in womb was supernatural, but occurred before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and before the Holy Spirit had been poured out.
It seems to me to have no relevance to the status of children under the new covenant.
> “note that there is a difference between being in the covenant and being saved.”
We can’t “note” this, because it’s at the heart of the controversy under discussion. Can you be a member of the New Covenant and not be saved? Go through all the things that the New Testament says are specifically benefits of the New Covenant and the conclusion is, no, you can’t.
Johnathan, fellow Indian here. You might want to explore Vishal Mangalwadi’s works — particularly The Making of Modern India. He compellingly argues that much of our constitutional and moral framework is grounded in Christian thought, adapted within a predominantly Hindu society — a contrast that perhaps explains the chaos we see today. My words can’t do his arguments full justice, but his writing offers the depth and clarity that might untangle your conundrum.
Isaiah,
If it makes you feel any better, every straight man in the world wants your problem.