Does the Bible Demand Baptism Only by Immersion?: A Case for Sprinkling and Pouring Alongside Immersion

The doctrine of water baptism has sadly been a bitter source of division for Christians down through the centuries, especially since the time of the Protestant Reformation. While most of the debate has centered on the question of whether or not infants are to be baptized, the proper mode of administering baptism has also caused significant debate. Some Christians baptize only by full immersion (this can also be called "submersion" baptism). Other Christians, in addition to immersion, will also administer water baptism by pouring water on the candidate (also called "affusion") or by sprinkling water upon the person receiving baptism (also called "aspersion"). 

Historically, Christian groups like Baptists, Pentecostals, and most independent Bible churches practice immersion-only baptism. They would argue that sprinkling and pouring are invalid methods of dispensing the ordinance. For example, the Baptist Faith and Message, the statement of beliefs for the Southern Baptist Convention, states that "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Similarly, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, published in 1689, states that, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

As noted above, however, immersion is also practiced by Pentecostals and others. The Sixteen Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God has as part of its doctrine of baptism, "The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures." Similar convictions on the proper mode of baptism are found in places like Calvary Chapel and elsewhere. 

Conversely, within conservative Evangelical Protestantism, pouring and sprinkling are recognized (often alongside immersion) as valid and biblical modes of baptism. Such convictions are found, for example, in the confessions of faith for Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the flagship confession of faith for Presbyterians, states the following, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." The Savoy Declaration, which historically has been used by Evangelical Congregationalists, repeats verbatim the Westminster Confession on pouring or sprinkling. In practice, however, most Presbyterians and Congregationalists that I am aware of are not necessarily opposed to full immersion. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and some others also practice baptism by pouring and/or sprinkling.

With that short historical survey out of the way, in this article, I will argue that water baptism can rightly be administered either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling; and that the mode of baptism need not be a source of division among Christians. Since, however, immersion is really not all that controversial in American Evangelicalism, I will spend very little time defending it, other than to point out some of the arguments in its favor. I will spend most of my time in this article defending both pouring and sprinkling as equally valid as immersion. I will not delve into the issues of infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, or the formula to be invoked when baptism is administered. That will be beyond the scope of this article. Only the mode of baptism will be discussed here. 

Baptism by full immersion, as noted above, is relatively uncontroversial in American Evangelicalism. The question really is about whether or not baptism is exclusively by immersion. In other words, is baptism by immersion alone? As noted above, Baptists and some others say yes. They argue that only immersion is the proper baptismal practice, to the exclusion of pouring/sprinkling. One Baptist writer, Tom Elliff, puts it bluntly about his conviction concerning the proper mode of baptism, "This is clearly immersion. The word itself is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means to immerse or plunge into. This is the manner in which Christ was baptized (Matthew 3:16). It was the manner of the disciples' baptism (John 3:22-23). In fact, the picture of death, burial, and resurrection demands immersion (Romans 6:4)." Thus, Elliff presents a threefold argument for immersion-only baptism: (1) the lexical meaning of the Greek word βαπτιζω (baptizo), (2) that Christ and his disciples were baptized by immersion, and (3) an appeal to the word picture of death-burial-resurrection, found in Romans 6:4. This tends to be the standard Baptist appeal to a strict immersion-only position.

In response to these arguments, I will offer up three rebuttals, each in turn. Following this, I will submit two positive arguments for sprinkling and pouring respectively, as valid modes of administering the ordinance/sacrament of baptism. I want to state again that my argument is not against immersion as a valid mode of baptism, but only against immersion exclusively.

In the first place, Baptists like Elliff believe that the lexical meaning of the Greek word βαπτιζω demands immersion because the word itself means to dip, plunge, immerse, etc... and that it never means to sprinkle or pour. Now, it is true that βαπτιζω does have that basic denotation. Even though I will argue shortly that it can mean more than to immerse, it does not mean less. That is why I hold that immersion is a proper mode of baptism, even though it is not the only proper mode of baptism. I am not dismissing the lexical meaning of βαπτιζω. 

The problem is that I believe that Baptists are committing a very common logical fallacy here, which New Testament scholar D.A. Carson calls the "root fallacy." Carson defines the root fallacy as follows: "...[T]he root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word."[1] Applying it to the present discussion, Baptists and others who insist on immersion only are basing their theology of the mode of baptism on the root meaning of a particular Greek word, without regard to how it is actually used in varying contexts. But Carson reminds us that words, while they certainly do have a semantic limit, also have a semantic range. Words can be used a number of different ways and should never be reduced to mere root meanings. As we shall see later, the Greek words often translated "baptize" and "baptism" will often appear in contexts where immersion is ruled out. 

To further illustrate this point, words can have a semantic range even in English. For example, one of the most popular sports in the world is football. In the United States, it is known most often as soccer. Yes, it is true that what is called football in most parts of the world is a game in which a ball is advanced by the foot. That is a very strict lexical definition of the word, and it fits. And yet, other sports called football are played, for example, in the United States, Canada, Ireland, and Australia in which the hands are used prominently, if not primarily, although the feet are certainly used as well. Words can shift in connotation and meaning while still retaining a root definition. The same can be said of the Greek word βαπτιζω. It does not mean less than full immersion, but it can and does (as we will soon see) connote more than strict immersion. 

The second line of argumentation that strict immersionists often use is to assert that immersion is the manner in which Jesus and his disciples were baptized, therefore we must be thus baptized as well. Elliff, quoted above, appeals to Matthew 3:16 and John 3:22-23 to support his assertion. Matthew 3:16 tells us that after being baptized by John, Jesus "went up from the water." But while this could imply full immersion, it need not necessarily demand it. I agree with one Presbyterian writer who notes, "The issue with interpreting this as evidence for immersion is that scripture never goes this far. In fact, this verse could have been just as easily true if Jesus went down and touched his toes in the water and then came back up out of the river. Going down into a river doesn’t decisively confirm Jesus was [baptized] by immersion, in-fact we have early Christian art that depicts people being baptized in a river, standing waist-deep scooping up water from the river onto the heads of the recipients." A similar argument could be said for John 3:22-23. Simply needing a large amount of water does not necessarily demand immersion baptism. Scripture is simply not at pains to give us those kinds of details. Both Matthew 3:16 and John 3:22-23 do not give us enough data to make a determination about how baptisms were performed in the early Christian era, nor how they ought to be performed today.

The third line of argumentation that Baptists and other immersionists utilize is Romans 6:4, in which Paul equates water baptism with the picture of death, burial, and resurrection: "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." In addition to Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12 is sometimes appealed to by Baptists, in which believers were, "...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." 

Concerning Romans 6:4, Wayne Grudem is typical of the immersionist position, "Now this truth is clearly symbolized in baptism by immersion. When the candidate for baptism goes down into the water, it is a picture of going down into the grave and being buried. Coming up out of the water is then a picture of being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. Baptism thus very clearly pictures death to one's old way of life and rising to a new kind of life in Christ. But baptism by sprinkling or pouring simply misses this symbolism."[2] In response, I do partly agree. Baptism by immersion certainly does helpfully illustrate the believers union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. The argument in this article is not that immersion baptism is wrong, but only to say that immersion baptism is not the exclusive mode of baptism. So, while it is appropriate to appeal to Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 to support baptism by immersion as one option, it is inappropriate to use them to argue for immersion exclusively.

Having said that, however, in contrast to Grudem, I point out that not all burials (particularly in Israel at the time of Christ) are below ground in a grave, but many are above ground in a tomb. This is the manner in which the Lord Jesus was buried. He was buried above ground in a tomb hewn out of a rock (Luke 23:53). This would actually suggest a lateral movement for baptism rather than the down-then-up movement as Baptists like Grudem suggest. In that case, contra Grudem, pouring water over the baptismal candidate would better serve the symbolism of burial than immersion. Thus, while immersion can symbolize death, burial, and resurrection, it is not the only way to do justice to that symbolism. 

Having shown then that the Baptist insistence on immersion as the exclusive mode of baptism is untenable, I will now offer up two positive arguments in favor of both sprinkling and pouring respectively. In the first place, it is evident that the verbiage for baptism can be used not only for water, but for the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus, before his ascension to heaven, told his followers to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). It is clear, however, that the early believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit by pouring, not by being downwardly plunged into the Spirit, as Peter declares, "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we al are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing" (Acts 2:32-33). It is evident then, at minimum, that baptism with the Holy Spirit was/is accomplished, not by full immersion, but by pouring. 

Further evidence for pouring as one valid mode of baptism, is to consider Titus 3:5-6, "...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..." Since water baptism is closely tied to the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), and since the washing away of sins by the Holy Spirit is communicated here by the idiom of pouring, it stands to reason then that the administration of the symbol could correspond to the reality that it points to.

The same can be said of sprinkling. In another place, the washing away of sins is communicated by the imagery of sprinkling water, "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). This Scripture may even have been in Paul's mind when he penned the letter to Titus referenced above. In any event, since water baptism represents the washing away of sins by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, and the reality is conveyed by sprinkling and pouring, it is evident at least that sprinkling and pouring are just as valid modes of administering water baptism as immersion. 

In summary, none of the above is to say that full immersion is an invalid mode of baptism. The language of death, burial, and resurrection in Romans and Colossians and the lexical range of βαπτιζω certainly allow for (but do not demand) immersion baptism. The Presbyterians and Congregationalists who penned the Westminster and Savoy confessions respectively went too far in saying that "dipping of the person into the water is not necessary..." But it is just as certain that Baptists, Pentecostals, and others who insist only on full immersion baptism likewise go too far in that insistence. All three historic modes of administering water baptism are equally valid and none should be rejected out of hand. One or another mode may be the preference and/or practice of a given church, but grace and liberty should be extended on the question of the proper mode of dispensing the sacrament of water baptism. Amen.

[1] D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 32.

[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 1197.  

The Gospel of God, Part 2

In my last post, I took a look at Paul's description of the gospel of God from Romans 1:1-4, showing that his gospel was rooted in the prior revelation of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament. In this post, I will focus on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and how that passage also informs Paul's (and the Church's) gospel presentation.

Paul begins chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians (although it was not actually his first letter to them, see 1 Corinthians 5:9) like this, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures..."

I covered some of the Old Testament references for the gospel in my last post, so in this post, I will lay out the vital components of the gospel of God. In the first place, the gospel is the message whereby we are saved, as Paul says. In fact, it is the only message whereby people are delivered from an eternity of condemnation and judgment from a holy God. Elsewhere Paul calls the gospel the "gospel of your salvation" (Ephesians 1:13). In yet another place, Paul writes that those who preach a different gospel (whether they be apostles or angels) are under God's curse of anathema (Galatians 1:6-9). The reason why someone would be under God's curse for preaching a different gospel is because those who do so are misleading people into putting their trust in something and/or someone that cannot save!

Secondly, Paul places the gospel as something which is "of first importance." This cannot be overstated. The gospel of Christ is of first importance and supersedes all other considerations in living as Christians. Think of things in church life that are very important: a statement of faith, good music, preaching, small groups, children's and youth ministries, elders, prayer, biblical counseling, etc... Most would agree that these and other things carry massive importance in being followers of Jesus - both individually and together as a local body of believers. But as important as all those things are (and they are very important), the truth of the gospel message is infinitely more so. Because without a proper and firm grasp of the gospel, all the important things mentioned above will profit no one anything, and may even contribute to increasing judgment on us if they are not properly rooted in who Jesus is and what he has done. 

And what has Jesus done in the gospel? Well, in the first place, Paul tells us that Christ died for our sins. A gospel where Christ has not died (such as in Islam) is no gospel at all. But not only is the gospel that Jesus died, he died according to the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament). In other words, it is not only that Jesus died, but that he died a certain way which is laid out in the Old Testament. Jesus could not have fallen sick and died peacefully in his sleep for example. His death had to be public, by piercing and being witnessed by others (Psalm 22:7; Isaiah 53:5; Zechariah 12:10). More than this, though, Christ died "for our sins." This is why the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is so necessary. Yes, it is true that Christ by his death disarmed Satan and his demons (Colossians 2:14-15). The doctrine of Christus Victor is certainly true. But by itself it is insufficient. Christ's death by crucifixion was only a victory over Satan because he took away one of Satan's most effective weapons, namely accusation (Revelation 12:10). 

Next, Paul writes that Christ was buried. I have written elsewhere on why it is so important that Christ was buried. To briefly reiterate, Christ's burial is vital to prove that he really was dead since only a dead person is buried (not even the Romans were so cruel as to bury someone alive). But more than this, it was necessary to prove that he really was resurrected since witnesses saw him being buried and subsequently saw him alive; as well as to show that his dead body was not eaten by carrion birds or otherwise disposed of.

Lastly, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul reminds his readers and us that Christ was raised up and seen by many witnesses. The true, physical, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the capstone of the Christian faith. Without it, there can be no forgiveness of sins, the early church was full of liars, and the whole of the faith is reduced to nothing (1 Corinthians 15:14-19). This is why the Apostles especially were at pains to emphasize the resurrection and their personal experience of it. The Apostle John, for example, writes that he bears eyewitness testimony of the totality of Jesus' ministry, including his resurrection, "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Paul also relates his personal experience of the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1).

The gospel is a trust that God himself has given the Church to declare throughout the whole world. It belongs to God, is rooted in the Old Testament, and concerns Jesus Christ - and him alone - as the crucified, buried, and risen one. It is the only message that when believed, leads to salvation. False gospels and false Christs do not save, but only lead to condemnation. I pray that those who read may be encouraged to believe and share this wonderful message of God's kindness, mercy, and grace given in Jesus Christ. Amen. 

Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Teach that Christians Can Forfeit Their Salvation?

Is it possible for a Christian to lose or forfeit their salvation? Can a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ move from death to life and then back to death? This is no academic question, but one that holds tremendous practical importance for the everyday lives of believers. But let me also clarify something. The question is not about whether or not people people can outwardly profess faith in Christ and then later fall away. That is something Scripture is clear about and something which many reading this (and I include myself) can no doubt attest to. Indeed, I have known or heard of individuals who once claimed to believe in the Lord Jesus, but have since fallen away completely from the faith, or have embraced heretical or unorthodox theologies, thus revealing their true character. Sadly, I can think of at least one person who completely fell away from the faith to embrace heresy. It is a heartbreaking thing to witness.

But what should we make of such people? And is that fate something that we who still hold faithfully to the gospel need to fear? I hope to answer that question in this post. I cannot do a thorough study of the doctrine of perseverance, or preservation of the saints. But I want to explore what is probably the most frequently cited text by those who hold that true believers in Jesus can fall away from the faith and forfeit/lose their salvation (those in the Wesleyan/Methodist and Pentecostal/Holiness traditions are usually representative of this view). That passage is Hebrews 6:4-6. I hope to show that this Scripture does hold out the certainty of damnation for those who fall away from their profession of Christ, but that those who thus fall away were never truly born again. Moreover, the writer to the Hebrews knows that God will keep his readers (and us) from such a fate. Other passages from Scripture will be brought in for further support. In other words, I hope to demonstrate that while a Christian can theoretically lose their salvation, they won't lose it because God will keep them by his power until the end. I also hope to show that the archetypal apostate (that is, one who commits apostasy by leaving the faith he/she once confessed) is Judas Iscariot. He professed faith in Christ and even participated in the ministry, but was never truly converted to begin with. His apostasy was simply exposing him for what he was all along, a thief and a false professor.

Hebrews 6:4-6 says the following, For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (ESV)

On the surface, this appears pretty straightforward. These verses seem to be saying that someone who has experienced true conversion can fall away and be eternally condemned since they can never again be renewed to repentance. But I believe that paying close attention to the context and reading the entire passage leads to a different conclusion. Someone can fall away for sure. But such a person was never truly born again to begin with. 

Firstly, let us look at the preceding verses, Hebrews 5:12-6:3: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. (ESV)

The author is rebuking his readers because even though they have been in Christ for a good length of time and should be in positions of teaching others the basics of the faith, they are still stuck in spiritual immaturity! They are still in need of spiritual "milk" instead of "meat." The author goes on to write that they should leave behind elementary teaching and move on to more substantive doctrine and thinking about Christ and the Christian faith. In short, they needed to grow up! And it is in this context that the author warns them of the dangers of apostasy. Those who don't grow up and make progress in their faith will instead go backwards and usually end up leaving the faith altogether. 

That said, we still have not really answered the question. Does the author of Hebrews really believe that his readers (both then and now) are in actual danger of falling away? I don't think so. What the author will do next in vv. 7-9 is clarify his assertions in vv. 4-6 by using a farming metaphor, which echoes one of the most well-known parables of Jesus. But in doing so, he gives reasons to believe that what he describes is what happens to false professors; something that will not happen to true believers because God will keep them from it:

For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. (ESV)

Part of the problem with the view that says that true believers can fall from grace and forfeit their salvation is that they do not read the entire passage! In other words, if they kept reading, they would see that the author of Hebrews is not describing true believers who fall away, but rather false professors who refuse to grow up. The author uses the metaphor of crops drinking in the rain, either bearing fruit or not. This is similar to the Parable of the Sower/Soils that Jesus tells (Mark 4:1-20). According to that parable, the seed sown falls on four types of soils: rocky, shallow, thorn ridden, and good soil. Only the last produced any grain. The others showed at best some kind of growth, but are never said to have produced any crop useful for harvesting. In other words, only the seed that fell upon the good soil bore any useful crop. Only this last soil describes a genuine believer. The others represent unregenerate people, including some who appeared outwardly to be part of the community of faith.

The same thing is happening here in Hebrews 6. There are those who are outwardly associated with the Christian community, even experiencing in some measure the power of the Holy Spirit upon and around them (but not necessarily in them). But they bear no fruit. Their end is to be burned. They experienced many of the blessings of the Kingdom of God by their proximity to believers, but because they never bore a crop useful to God, they showed their true nature as unregenerate people by falling away. If they had been true believers before, they would have born fruit and remained within the Church (1 John 2:18-19). The Lord is very clear that those who are truly in him do bear fruit and are sanctified further by the Father so that they may bear even more fruit (John 15:1-2). So, if we are talking about true believers who fall away and lose their salvation, then there has to be a category for those who bear fruit but then stop bearing fruit. But there is no such category in the New Testament. People either bear fruit and are among those who are saved, or they bear no fruit whatsoever, and are among those eternally condemned.

More than this, the key to interpreting this passage as I have is found in verse 9: Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things - things that belong to salvation. The writer is basically saying, "This falling away from Christ won't happen to you! It is unusual to have to speak this way, but as serious as falling away is, it won't be your fate!" 

Another key to this interpretation is found in the parallel passage in Hebrews 10. There, the writer, having spent time expounding on Jesus' New Covenant death and his eternal priesthood, again warns of the dangers of apostasy:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” (Hebrews 10:26–38)

But once again keep reading! In verse 39, immediately after the passage above, the writer again clarifies his statement, But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. The writer is again saying that this awful falling away from Christ, which would and does lead to eternal condemnation will not be the fate of his readers nor of us today! No, true believers will be preserved and persevere until the end. The Lord Jesus promises it (John 10:27-30), and the letters of the New Testament promise it (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). Yes, if his readers fell away from Christ they would be condemned and forfeit salvation. But they won't fall away because God will keep them from it. It isn't so much that a true Christian can't lose their salvation. It is that a true Christian won't lose their salvation because of God's power working in them (1 Peter 1:3-5).

Those who profess faith in Christ, but then fall away and commit apostasy are the spiritual descendants of Judas Iscariot. Judas was not only a disciple of the Lord Jesus, he was one of the Twelve Apostles. He was one of the closest followers of Jesus. He professed faith in Jesus, heard Jesus teach, traveled with him, and even performed miracles of deliverance in his name (Luke 9:1-6)! There was every outward indication that he was a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus. But he was not. Even as he ate, drank, and walked with Jesus, even having charge of the financial assets of the Lord and his disciples, he was a thief, a liar, and ultimately a traitor. John records that Jesus knew all along that Judas was a fraud, Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:70-71). Elsewhere, John records that Judas was a habitual thief, stealing from the common purse which was meant to support the ministry of the Lord and his disciples. Judas, in a fake show of piety, objected to the lavish expression of worship which Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, offered to the Lord Jesus in the form of pouring expensive perfume on the feet of Jesus, But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Judas was an apostate. He fell away from the faith. He betrayed Jesus in an act of treachery so serious, that Jesus said it would have been better for him to have never been born (Mark 14:21). But he was not someone who had genuine faith in Jesus, bore fruit as a believer, but then subsequently fell away and lost a salvation that he once truly possessed. No, he was always an unregenerate thief, who falsely professed faith in Jesus, using his position as a leader in the community of Christ's disciples to pilfer from the common money bag, and enrich himself. His act of treason against Christ only confirmed outwardly what was already true of him inwardly. The same is true of apostates today. Their eventual outward denial of Christ merely makes obvious what was already true of their hearts all along. They were never genuinely believers in Jesus, only fakers. 

Yes, it is true that to fall away from Christ leads to eternal condemnation in hell. In fact, it is even worse to fall away from a faith once professed than to have never professed it at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). But when the whole of the Bible's teaching is considered, even those passages which seem to indicate that a true believer can fall away and forfeit and lose the salvation they once possessed are correctly understood to be teaching that such were always false professors. They were never truly changed inwardly to begin with. God made a promise in the New Covenant that he would put the fear of him into the hearts of his people, precisely so that they would not fall away and be destroyed (Jeremiah 32:40). We can be sure that those who have truly undergone the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit will be preserved by God's power and will persevere in faith until the end, and receive eternal salvation. Amen. 

The Gospel of God, Part 1

What is the gospel? I cannot imagine a more important question than this. As Christians, we are convinced that the gospel is the good news of salvation from being rightly and justly condemned by God for our rebellion against him. It is the message of Jesus Christ, who he is and what he has accomplished. It is the foundational message of the Christian faith. Everything in the Bible either leads to it or flows from it. And so, I want to spend a little time expounding upon it and applying it. At its most basic, the gospel is the divinely sent message that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah - the Son of God and God the Son - who has accomplished salvation from sin through his death, burial, and resurrection. All of this was predicted and foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and accomplished, declared, and applied in the New Testament. 

There are many Scriptures that explain and apply the gospel, but in this post, I want to focus specifically on Romans 1:1-4. In a subsequent post, I will look briefly at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and what that passage tells us about the gospel. In this passage in Romans, what I have highlighted above will be made more clear. Romans 1:1-4[1] says this: Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord...

Paul begins his letter to the Roman Christians by noting his own identity as an apostle. But he goes on to say that the substance of his apostolic ministry is to be "set apart for the gospel of God..." I like that last part, the "gospel of God." It is important to grasp that the gospel is God's gospel. That is what I meant above when I stated that the gospel is the "divinely sent message..." No human being came up with the gospel. It does not belong to any human being or any human organization. It was not copied from pre-existing legends, as some falsely claim. It originates with God. And it belongs to God and to God alone. God is the one who originated the gospel in his own eternal plan, and who has given it to the Church as a trust to spread it around the world. That is why keeping the message of the gospel pure is so important, and why those who tamper with it bring upon themselves eternal condemnation in hell (Galatians 1:8-9).

But Paul goes further. God did bestow the responsibility to spread the message of the gospel to Paul. But Paul was not the first to receive it. In fact, neither were those who were apostles of Jesus before Paul. According to Paul, the gospel was "promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures..." In this context, "the holy Scriptures" refers to what Christians call the Old Testament. The gospel is not just a New Testament phenomenon. It is all over the Old Testament! I will give just a sampling of passages below: 

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)

Here, God promises that the offspring of the woman (literally, the "seed," and not that of the man; prefiguring the later revelation of the Virgin Birth) will deliver a fatal blow to the serpent (the Devil) while suffering what will not be an ultimately fatal blow from the serpent. 

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Samuel 7:12)

God promises to David that after his own death and burial, he will "raise up" his offspring after him (in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, completed approximately 200 years *BEFORE* Christ, this is the verb "to resurrect"). 

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool"...The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:1.4)

In one of the most explicit passages in the Hebrew Bible, God himself says to David's "Lord" (someone of higher rank than David) that he should sit at his right hand, a place of equal power and prestige. This one who is greater than David is also designated a priest forever by God, but not after Aaron's priesthood, but after that of the enigmatic Melchizedek. The New Testament book of Hebrews goes into much more detail about this, but suffice it to say that the seeds of Messiah's reign in heaven at God's right hand and his priesthood are already being planted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace...when his soul makes on offering for guilt, [God] shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days... (Isaiah 53:5a, 10b).

Perhaps even more explicit than the Psalm passage above is Isaiah 52:13-53:12. This tells us of the suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and exaltation of the Messiah in great specifics, and that nearly 700 years before the fact!

For Paul, this gospel about Jesus, the descendant of Israel's King David who was raised from the dead was something he was "set apart" for (Romans 1:1). His ministry, the Church's ministry, and my ministry within the Church is also to be set apart for this message, to preach it and to "bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations" (Romans 1:5).

This gospel also demands a response from those who hear it. Paul said to the Greek philosophers in Athens, "[God] commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30b-31). If you are reading this today and you do not know or follow Jesus, then I make this my plea to you. Turn from your own way and place your full faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. He was crucified, died, and was raised up to bring about salvation and a supernatural, eternal life and joy from the damnation brought about by our sins and offenses against God. Anything that gets in the way of this must be pushed aside and abandoned. If you are a believer and you are reading this, then I pray you would be encouraged by the reminder about what Christ has done and that you will be inspired to share it with others who do not yet know the Lord. Amen. 

[1] All Scripture Quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.

The Good and Proper Use of the Law in 1 Timothy

The Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy to his Apostolic coworker Timothy in part to encourage him to defend the faith against certain false teachers, who were troubling the Church there. It should be remembered that earlier, Paul had warned the Ephesians that false teachers would come, and had exhorted them to be watchful, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert..." (Acts 20:28-31a ESV). Now, later on, Paul's prediction had come true and he has dispatched Timothy to deal with the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3).

Now, it is not entirely clear as to the exact nature of the Ephesian heresy at this time. Paul does not go into detail nor does he issue a point-by-point rebuttal. He expects Timothy to be the one to confront them. But I think we can use some clues from 1 Timothy and make an educated guess. And from there, I want to make a brief application for today. It seems evident that to some degree, the heresy in Ephesus to which Timothy was commissioned to combat contained some element of Law keeping as a means of being right with God. In other words, it encompassed some kind of distortion of the Torah, the Law of Moses (i.e., Genesis-Deuteronomy). What Paul does in writing to Timothy is to fight fire with fire. Paul combats an erroneous use of the Law by showing its true use. Throughout 1 Timothy, virtually all of Paul's Old Testament references come from the first five books of the Bible, the Law of Moses. The following is not exhaustive of every possible OT reference in 1 Timothy, but it is representational of the major quotations or allusions.

Firstly, Paul calls out the false teachers who were, "desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:7). Following this, Paul lays out the true purpose of the Law, which is to convict law-breakers! The vice list in vv. 9-10 contains a general list, but also mentions several sins which are expressly condemned in the Law. For example, the Law is for those who "strike their fathers and mothers" (Exodus 20:12, 21:15), murderers (Exodus 20:13), "the sexually immoral" and "men who practice homosexuality" (Leviticus 18:1-30), enslavers (Exodus 21:16), and liars and perjurers (Exodus 20:16).

In chapters 2 and 3, Paul instructs Timothy on matters of church order, selecting qualified leaders, and especially how believers should behave as members of the "household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Chapter 2 contains the extremely controversial passage on men and women in the covenant community. Whether or not Paul, in chapter 2, is describing the gathered assembly is beside the point here. But when Paul does instruct that women should not assume teaching and/or leadership in the church, but are to remain submissive and tend to their roles as wives/mothers, he grounds his reasons in the Genesis accounts of creation and fall in Genesis 2-3 (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

In chapter 4, Paul again goes on the offensive against false teaching. Again, he appeals to the Law of Moses - especially to the Genesis creation account. The heretics were apparently those who, "forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:3). Paul, however, will have none of it, and responds by pointing out from the Law that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4). Both marriage (Genesis 2:24) and the foods which people eat (Genesis 1:25, 9:3) were given by God's institution in the beginning; as Moses had recorded.

In chapter 5, Paul instructs Timothy on proper treatment of widows (5:3-16). While this section does not explicitly quote or allude to the Old Testament or the Law specifically, there are echoes of the fifth commandment, to "honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12) in the honor which is to be given to true widows by their children and grandchildren. The believer is to care for his/her aging mother if she is a widow and to repay her for having raised them. Verse 8 is a pointed rebuke for those who fail to do so, "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). In fact, this passage does resemble the Lord's own scathing denunciation of the pharisees for their "corban" rule, which was effectively abused as a loophole to allow people to violate the fifth commandment by escaping caring for their aged parents with a pious-sounding excuse (Mark 7:9-13).

Paul then goes on in chapter 5 to quote from Deuteronomy 25:4 and to apply the principle from that passage to exhort Timothy to make sure that faithful elders, especially those who shoulder the responsibility to preach and teach, receive appropriate financial remuneration (1 Timothy 5:17-18). Again, it seems that Paul is correcting the false teachers' abuse of the Law of Moses by giving the true interpretation and application of it.

It is possible to see potential echoes of the Law of Moses in other places in 1 Timothy, though these are less certain. When Paul speaks of the "unholy and profane," in 1:9, he may be obliquely referring to the sin of Nadab and Abihu, who were killed by God for offering up "profane fire" and failed to honor the Lord as holy (Leviticus 10:1-3). Perhaps also, Paul's description of God as the one "whom no one has ever seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16) is an echo of Exodus 33:20, where God declares that "man shall not see me and live." Even if not, it is evident that in 1 Timothy Paul is looking to the Law of Moses itself to combat the false teachers who utilize the Law erroneously to become wealthy (1 Timothy 6:3-5). For Paul, the antidote for the improper use of Scripture is the correct use of Scripture.

So, what can we learn today from Paul's example? I can think of two things. Firstly, Christians in the New Covenant age should be careful in how they utilize the Law of Moses. On the one hand, Christians are not under the Law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). We should not view the Law as a means of attaining a right standing before God. But we must also avoid the opposite error of neglecting or rejecting the Law altogether. Paul elsewhere states that, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). The Law is a good thing, even though it has been superseded by the gospel. As can be demonstrated by my short survey above, much of the ethical and moral teaching of the New Covenant has its basis in the Law of Moses. Christians today read the Old Covenant Law through the lens of Christ and the New Covenant. But we should honor the Law as God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Secondly, as already briefly noted, the correct use of Scripture is vitally important. Heretics and even Satan himself (Matthew 4:5-6) know how to twist Scripture. Often, their misuse of Scripture will sound like truth, thus deceiving those without discernment. For discerning believers, however, hearing Scripture twisted will seem off; the Spirit of God will alert them to it (John 10:3-5). It becomes most important then, to learn how to correctly interpret and apply the Bible. This is the best defense against false teaching and false prophecy.

Timothy faced an uphill battle in Ephesus, just as we do today against a multitude of errors. But Timothy had a mentor in the person of Paul, who gave him, through his letters, the ammunition he needed to "fight the good fight of the faith" (1 Timothy 6:12). While Paul has long since passed on to be with the Lord, we, too can be equipped to fight the good fight by heeding his instructions to Timothy along with the rest of the canon of the Bible. Even in our post-industrial Western cultural location, we today can find wisdom through the Law of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, and the New Testament to live godly and productive lives in Christ Jesus. Amen.

The World According to John: Limited Atonement in the Writings of the Beloved Disciple

Many Christian people do not like the biblical teachings on predestination and sovereign election, or Calvinism for short if you prefer. But if there is one thing about Calvinistic doctrine which is even more offensive to most of its opponents than unconditional election, it is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. This teaching, also known as "Particular Redemption" or "Definite Atonement", basically states that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a true and actual sacrifice for the specific sins of His specific people, and for them alone. To simplify matters, Limited Atonement advocates believe that Jesus died for those whom God the Father had already chosen to be saved, and only for them. The death of Jesus then has no reference whatsoever to those not chosen for salvation from eternity past. I have written previously defending Limited Atonement in a concise fashion.

Against Limited Atonement is the doctrine of "Universal Atonement", which most North American Christians hold to. Universal Atonement posits a true atoning sacrifice for sins on behalf of sinners, but it holds that the death of Jesus was on behalf of literally every person in the entire human race, down to the very last person, whether or not they are ultimately saved. It is then up to the sinner to lay hold of that sacrifice by his or her faith, which flows from their alleged free will. A variant of this view is called Amyraldianism, which holds to most Calvinistic tenets, but nevertheless posits a universal atonement. 

Proponents of Universal Atonement point to a number of passages to bolster their view. The most famous of course is John 3:16, which is so familiar that it hardly needs quoting. But another favorite go-to text is 1 John 2:2. That passage reads: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. Universal Atonement advocates believe that this verse definitively proves that the atoning death of Jesus was on behalf of literally the entire human race without exception. The logic goes like this: Jesus died not only for the sins of Christians (not only for ours), but also for every single person throughout the whole of time and space (the whole world). 

Based on the above understanding, it would seem that my view that Jesus died sacrificially and vicariously only for the elect of God would seem to be refuted. What I hope to show however, is that this verse must be interpreted in tandem with the whole of Scripture, but especially with the other writings of the Beloved Disciple. That is my task today. I intend to argue that John's statements in both John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 should be understood firstly within the context of the first century milieu in which they appeared, but also compared with similar statements in his other writings which show that John believed that the atoning death of Jesus was intended only for the elect of God scattered throughout the whole of the earth, not only for his original audience. 

To begin with, we must discuss the meaning of the word "world", which is found not only in 1 John 2:2, but also the more famous John 3:16. Universal Atonement advocates naturally wonder what else it could mean but literally every person who has ever lived, is living, and will live. One Universal Atonement proponent says this, "There is no linguistic or exegetical or theological ground for reducing the meaning of 'world' to 'the elect' in such passages as John 3:16. John Owen made John 3:16 read 'God so loved those he chose out of the world,' which changes completely the sense of the verse and turns it into something opposite of its intended meaning. But to make the meaning of 'world' here 'the elect' is to make not only a linguistic mistake but also a logical mistake of category confusion". Contrary to the above quotation, I intend to show that there is in fact "linguistic", "exegetical", and "theological" grounds for understanding "the world" as meaning the elect of God who are gathered by the gospel throughout space and time. 

To be honest, I have never thought that John 3:16 was determinative for either the predestinarian or the free will view. This verse occurs too early in John and is not in a context of teaching over how sovereign election or the atonement works. Jesus uttered this famous statement while conversing with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jewish people. When Jesus declared that God loved the world, how would Nicodemus have heard that? Remember, this is a man with Torah running through his veins from the time of his birth. This is a man steeped in Jewish particularism. The gentiles were unclean and had no knowledge of the true and only God. But here is Jesus saying that God loved the world in such a way as to send His only Son, bringing salvation to the believing ones. It seems more likely to me that Nicodemus would have understood "God so loved the world" as more of a general, rather than a specific, statement of God's saving benevolence beyond the boundaries of Judaism. 

It is doubtful Nicodemus would have understood Jesus as saying that God loves literally all people in some mathematical sense. Nicodemus was not a postmodern westerner with notions of egalitarianism. And neither was he a later puritan divine with access to the rest of the New Testament's teaching on election and the atonement. John 3:16 neither helps nor hurts the Calvinistic doctrine. Nor does it help or hurt the Free Will/Universal Atonement view. Most likely we should understand Jesus as simply foreshadowing in general terms that the gentiles will also partake of the salvation which Jesus, the Jewish Messiah is bringing to Israel. 

This understanding tracks well with John 12:32 in which Jesus is partially responding to the request of Greeks (i.e., gentiles from "the world") who wished to see Jesus. Jesus says, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." Here again, Jesus is speaking in general terms, foreshadowing that non-Jews will also participate in Israel's salvation and restoration which He will accomplish by His death.

But what about 1 John 2:2? Does not that text make unequivocally clear Universal Atonement for literally all people everywhere at all times and places? Actually, no it does not. To better illustrate my point, allow me to compare 1 John 2:2 with some similar Johannine passages which also speak of how Jesus' atoning death is both particular and wide reaching:

1 John 2:2	John 10:16b-16	John 11:51-52	Revelation 5:9b
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins	I lay down my life for the sheep	[Caiaphas] prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation	For you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood
And not for ours only		And not for that nation only
But also for the whole world	And other sheep I have which are not of this fold	But also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad	Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation

As can be seen above, John has a different understanding of "the world" than most contemporary Christians in North America (or to be fair in Europe during Reformation and post-Reformation eras). For John, "the world" is really shorthand for the elect scattered abroad throughout the nations of the earth in all time periods. They too would benefit from Jesus' atoning death for His elect people. Jesus was not merely calling Palestinian and Diaspora Jews and a handful of gentiles from the 1st century. No, Jesus has given His life up for His elect people from all peoples, places, and times from the beginning of creation to the final day.

To summarize then, the contrast John is making in 1 John 2:2 about whom Jesus died for is not between a limited group (Christians) and an unlimited group (all people literally without exception), but it is rather between a small limited group (John himself and his readers whom he addressed in chapter 1), and a much larger, but still limited group (those from the nations who will also believe in Jesus and participate in the fellowship which John described in chapter 1 of his first epistle).

One of the challenges of biblical interpretation is making sure to not bring prior assumptions into the biblical text. I find that those who hold to free will theologies with its Universal Atonement doctrine are generally well meaning believers who want to uphold the love of God and the call for people to repent and believe. Nevertheless, such good intentions must be submitted - like everything else - to what the Scriptures actually say and not what someone might want them to say. I understand that Calvinistic teachings are hard doctrines that challenge us. But I am convinced that they are true and that they serve to keep us humble before God as we trust Him to carry out His plan of redemption that includes an elect people scattered throughout the whole earth. In this way does God love the world. Amen.

A Brief Vindication of Christmas from the "Pagan Origins" Argument

I have always loved Christmas. Ever since I was a kid, I have looked forward to it all year long. I am sure many others can say the same thing. And honestly, I love almost everything about it. From the classic carols to the decorations and lights, the movies (like A Christmas Story or How the Grinch Stole Christmas), and the hot chocolate and candy canes, it really is the most wonderful time of the year! Admittedly, it is a little different now that I am an adult and not a kid anymore. But it is a singular joy watching my own kids open their presents and make their own Christmas memories.

Of course the main reason I love Christmas is because of the observance of the birth of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding it. I love to read the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and trace out how Old Testament prophecies find their fulfillment in Jesus. It is a joy to meditate on and to sing of the truth of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity:

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
  Hail th’ incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
  Jesus our Immanuel.

With all that said, one can excuse me if I find myself unimpressed and maybe even a little provoked many of the attempts to attack the Christmas holiday, both from the secular world and even within professing Christianity. Of course I expect the secular Babylon to hate anything to do with Jesus. I am not at all surprised that the world wants a thoroughly non-religious Christmas (not that there's anything wrong with Rudolph, Frosty, Winter Wonderlands, etc...).

But what really bothers me is when Christians eschew Christmas as somehow the fruit of pagan festivals, and thus offensive to God. Now I do believe that Christians should be able to abide by their own consciences. If any observance violates one's conscience, one should be left alone to follow where it leads, and others should respect it. But I equally have the right to disagree and to state why. And it is to that I turn. I intend to show that even if the so-called "pagan origins" of Christmastime traditions are true (and most of the time, that is debatable at best), those things can still be appropriated (or shall I say re-appropriated) for use in Christian observances. The same holds true of Easter and its unique traditions.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's assume that much of what is connected with Christmas - decorated trees, December 25, yule logs, etc. - can trace its origins to paganism. Does that therefore disqualify Christmas as a legitimate Christian celebration? The answer is a resounding no!

To prove my assertion, I appeal to Paul's teaching to the Corinthians regarding meat sold in the marketplace that had previously been offered up to idols in pagan ceremonies:

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13 NKJV

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”“Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10:30 NKJV

 

As the above quoted scriptures indicate, there is only one God and all things ultimately belong to Him because He created them. He already owned those elements that have been ostensibly offered to pagan "gods". Furthermore, according to Paul, idols are really nothing anyway. There is nothing inherent in an idol, nor in that which is sacrificed to the idol that can defile something that God already owned and pronounced "good" (Genesis 1:31).

 

To apply this teaching of Paul to Christmas traditions that were supposedly borrowed from ancient pagan practices, it really doesn't matter where they originally came from. First of all, in observing Christmas, no one is celebrating or worshiping Saturn (the Roman god, not the planet), the Invincible Sun, Odin, Thor, Zeus, or any other pagan deity. Christmas is the observance of Christ. Secondly, even if there are pagan origins to yule logs, wreaths, Christmas trees, mistletoe, etc... (a point which I concede merely for the sake of argument), we know that they are "nothing at all in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4), so they cannot by definition be defiled. It is evident therefore that God is not displeased by Christmas observance or the various traditions that have arisen over the centuries. 

Christmas is a wonderful season filled with rich traditions. It has stood the test of time. In its very essence, it honors and glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians should certainly use their consciences to determine to what degree they celebrate, but I agree with Ebenezer Scrooge's nephew Fred:

 

"There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say...Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round -- apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, Uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"

  -Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol