弟兄姐妹平安，马可福音第10章13到16节，我们先读一下这段经文，我们一起读吧。有人带着小孩子来见耶稣，要耶稣摸他们，门徒便责备那些人。 耶稣看见就恼怒，对门徒说：“让小孩子到我这里来，不要禁止他们；因为在神国的，正是这样的人。我实在告诉你们，凡要承受神国的，若不像小孩子，断不能进去。”于是抱着小孩子，给他们按手，为他们祝福。 好，我们感谢神的话语。我们今天讲道的主题，我们重新换了一个角度。叫做教会简史。因为马可福音十章13节到31节，总体上说，是讲了两个大的事件，第一个事件就是我们刚才读的，耶稣基督祝福小孩子，说让小孩子到他那里去。接下来发生的事件就是一个少年的财主，也要追随耶稣。但是，由于主耶稣对他讲的一些进天国的道理，他就离开了，财主就离开了。这两个故事放在一起，可以相当于基督教会的一个历史，或者一个牧师牧养教会的基本的经历，也是教会经常发生的两个事件。一个方面，教会的历史，就是小孩子不断来到教会的历史。另外一个方面，就是土财主，大骆驼不断离开教会的历史，这是每年，或者常常在教会里发生的两个互动的故事。小孩子进入教会，大骆驼忧忧愁愁的就离开了教会。那在某种意义上，我们知道，教会史是圣灵史，特别是从使徒行传来看。教会的历史是圣灵在教会里面工作的历史。当下正好是按照教会的年历，正好是圣灵节或者叫做五旬节。比如说8月11号是五旬节后的第九个主日，所以我们才选了那首歌。对我们福音派教会来讲，对路德教会来讲，选和五旬节主题有关的赞美诗非常难。你要到网上去找，你去看一些地方，你大部分都是特别灵恩的，就是赞美圣灵的，这样的圣诗几乎是很难找到，很难很难。那么我那边是勉为其难做了一个翻译，是因为那首赞美诗是五旬节赞美诗。目前中文的只有圣公会翻译过来的，确实翻译的很糟糕，所以我才把它翻译出来。就是用于我们五旬节主日的赞美。圣灵的工作很重要，但是也是最容易出异端，最难理解的一个真理，圣灵的真理真的是太难了，需要我们牢牢的牢牢的回到圣经上去，才能够把握。而圣灵的真理和我们今天要讲的孩子的救恩，以及那个财主对基督对教会的弃绝，这是密切相关的。就孩子而言，孩子的洗礼为的是领受所赐的圣灵，对那个财主来讲，他的问题是在圣灵上出现了问题。对基督徒来讲，最大的产业是圣灵，对那个财主来讲，最大的产业是钱财。所以我们就看见，就是对圣灵真理的这种误解，导致了教会和人类抗拒圣灵。抗拒圣灵的两大结果，第一，拒绝孩子洗礼。第二，永远把财产放在圣灵之上，作为人类的产业。而今天圣经的这两段教导，恰恰要颠覆这两个问题。我再说一遍，第一个问题，就是孩子需不需要圣灵，如果需要，孩子什么时候领圣灵？第二，我们如何把圣灵的产业放在钱财的产业之上。

第一个问题，我先提醒大家，因为这个问题很重要，对咱们CSMP是至关重要的，就是我们传讲婴孩儿洗礼。今天我们希望有更多的时间，更多的精力，把这个问题讲得再透彻一些。不知道大家有没有这种感受？就是一段时间教导，这个问题过去了，明白了，过一段时间又糊涂了，特别当有一些人拿这些问题来问我们的时候，我们又糊涂了。所以这个问题需要反复的讲，我先提醒大家有几个思路你要记住，就不至于总是反复。婴孩儿洗礼涉及到三个根本性的问题，第一个问题就是孩子和上帝的关系，或者说生命跟上帝的关系。第二个问题就是基督徒跟上帝的关系。第三个问题是父母跟儿女的关系。为什么这么讲？我先说第一个问题，就是生命跟上帝的关系，或者说生命跟圣灵的关系，或者说孩子和圣灵的关系。所有反对婴儿洗礼的人，他的理论，一个最大的问题在哪里？就是他没有办法告诉我们，上帝里的新生命是从什么时候开始的？有的人甚至不反对孩子洗礼，但他反对婴儿孩洗礼。他的意思是说一定要让孩子能够自由表达的时候，两岁三岁四岁。这套逻辑是完全不明白圣灵和生命之间的关系。我问大家一个问题，亚当什么时候有的生命？吹气的时候有生命，这是一种办法。还有一种理解就是等亚当有了生命，我再给他气息。我这样讲的时候，你明白吗？这是一个悖论。吹气的时候，他成了有灵的活人。但是反对婴孩儿洗礼人的逻辑是这样子的，就等，等他成了有灵的活人，我再吹气。懂我这个逻辑吗？换句话说吧，孩子，很多人都是做父母的，孩子会吃饭的时候，我们再给他吃饭，和孩子们吃饭的时候，正在学习吃饭，吃奶吧。你会不会对你的儿女说，等他学会吃奶的时候，我再让他吃奶？还是说他吃奶的时候，她正在学习吃奶，而且一直在吃奶。懂我的意思吗？走路，我们的孩子开始爬，或者刚刚从母腹当中出来，我们什么时候教他爬行，走路呢？就等孩子们学会爬行和走路的时候，我们才让他爬行和走路。可是他开始爬行和走路的时候，他已经在爬行和走路。很拗口，但是你知道我在说什么吗？孩子的洗礼也是一样的。就是他洗礼接受所赐的圣灵，他从此就开始了。你不要跟那个爆料党人说，就是一切都是刚刚开始，结果永远不开始。你告诉我说什么时候开始？right here，right now。现在就开始，从今到永远。射线，否则的话，你永远找不到起点。而且你要继续讲，就是个骗子，没有起点，永远没有准备好，一生都在准备。就像我经常说的，我们一直在准备生活，就从来没生活过。其实我们早就开始了，现在就应该开始，这是第一个问题。

但是反对婴儿洗礼的人的第二个道理是什么呢？就是那这是否意味着满大街抓一个孩子洗礼就可以了，就把信心赐给他了？所以我们说，婴孩儿洗礼的真理涉及到第二个问题，那就是上帝跟以色列选民的问题。圣灵是赐给选民和他的儿女的，圣灵不是赐给普天下每一个人的。使徒行传二章39节，这洗礼的应许，是赐给你们和你们的儿女的。所以圣灵跟上帝的选民有关系。那么有些外邦人后来归正了，圣灵也给他，这是神在永恒当中的拣选，这个是个奥秘。但大体上我们可以说，洗礼的圣灵是赐给神的儿女的。这是第二个问题。第三个问题，在婴孩儿洗礼这个真理上，上帝给父母赋予了很大很大的责任，而父母的信心和孩子的信心，有一种我们人的理性无法穿越的奥秘，父母有这个责任的。比如说以西结书谈到约伯的问题，约伯的义只能救他自己，不能救他的儿女，对吗？但是我们又看到了比如说马可福音，我们看到太多的神迹，是什么？父亲为儿女祷告，儿女就得医治了。这很多，在马可福音，这种例子太多了。你像迦南的妇人，然后我刚刚讲过的，就是哑巴鬼捆绑的那个孩子。圣经根本没有交代那个孩子信心的状况，但是按照我们整全的信息，如果不出现逻辑矛盾的话，那个孩子应该分享了他父母的信心。那怎么分享呢？那我也不知道。我们可以查一下哥林多前书七章。哥林多前书第七章大家翻过来，有一段经文其实也是蛮奥妙的，就是哥林多前书七章14节，因为不信的丈夫就因着妻子成了圣洁，并且不信的妻子，就因丈夫成了圣洁，不然你们的儿女就不洁净，但如今，他们是圣洁的了。父母之间的圣洁和儿女之间的圣洁之间的关系到底是怎样的，实际上我们不知道。怎么父母圣洁，儿女就圣洁了？那我们的结论可以是这样子的，就是基督徒的父母，你的信仰和你的儿女有一种非常非常重要的，不可分割的关系，其中包括使徒行传二章39节说的，这洗礼的应许是给你们和你们的儿女的，因此我们有责任把儿女带到神的面前来。这是我们在讲婴孩儿洗礼，先回答这样几个问题。我再说一遍，第一，就是圣灵跟生命之间的关系。不是你到了一个阶段，然后你再去接受圣灵，而是圣灵临到的时候，你的生命就已经开始了。第二个就是，洗礼的约或者洗礼的真理跟基督徒的、跟选民的关系。第三，就是父母的信仰和儿女信仰之间密不可分的关系。这三个问题我们等一下还要展开来讨论，先放在这里。

现在我们先看第一部分信息，就是13到16节，接待孩子的问题。我们先熟悉一下昨天的那个信息，回复一下，就是第二次耶稣关于受难和复活的预言。我们把它按照交叉结构分成七个部分，讲了四个部分，今天我们讲后面三个部分。上帝祝福孩子，祝福儿女，祝福这个小孩。在逻辑上，这件事情跟耶稣钉十字架有什么关系呢？这个我们首先需要解决，然后我们再讲婴孩儿洗礼的问题。第二个钱财的问题跟耶稣受难和复活有什么关系呢？第六和第七大体上可以放在一个单元里面。我简单跟大家说一下，就是耶稣祝福小孩儿会导致他被杀，主要是两个原因。第一个原因，主耶稣在这段经文当中把所有的成年人都得罪了，就神国的人跟成年人没有关系，跟属灵里的成年人没有关系。所以他得罪了整个人类，对吗？这个世界是成人掌权的世界。那不仅如此，还有一点，他得罪了这个世界。我们一定要明白，就是基督教和基督与这个世界一个最大最致命你死我活的战场就是儿童。因为争抢儿童，争抢未来的原因，耶稣和教会，基督和他的教会会成为魔鬼掌权世界的仇敌，这点我们中国人应该很明白，对吗？现在你在美国，在西方你也知道，围绕着学校教育，围绕着十字架是否在课堂的问题，现在可以说是生死之战，随着白左的教会，随着绿教、红教对西方的入侵，这个问题变得更加的尖锐，所以他要弄死我们，在中国也是一样。所以我们说在中国，我们面临着一个更加无耻的谎言，一个方面他们反对儿童进教会，另外一个方面，他们大张旗鼓的主张，爱聋哑鬼要从娃娃抓起，这是一个特别无耻的，特别伪善的谎言。但是，遗憾的就是中国的家长们分享这种魔鬼的谎言，在这个魔鬼的谎言中有份。一方面他们宣称，基督教信仰要等孩子长大来决定，另外一个方面，他们为儿女决定了所有的事情。总而言之，围绕着孩子是否能够归入教会，进入基督的问题，基督和教会与世界之主和他们的仆从有着生死之战，这涉及到人类的未来，更涉及到教会的长远的利益。这场战争是特别真实的，现在正在进行。那么钱财的问题很简单，这个财主听见主说你要舍弃一切，然后跟随我，把你的财产归给穷人的时候，那句话实际上说，财主就勃然大怒。这个我们教会很多人、基督徒都在经历，这是真的。当这个世界的人把钱财当作上帝的时候，他们就会憎恶那真正的上帝，谁跟他讲，他就会听道成仇。所以这些信息回过头来和我们的主题又连在一起，为什么在耶稣这个预言之下会组织这样的一些资讯。这个问题我们就解释到这里了，现在我们来看孩子洗礼的问题。

13节到16节，经文很短，很简洁。我再读给大家。有人带着小孩子来见耶稣，要耶稣摸他们，门徒便责备那些人。耶稣看见就恼怒，对门徒说，让小孩子到我这里来，不要禁止他们。因为在神国的，正是这样的人。我实在告诉你们，凡要承受神国的，若不像小孩子，断不能进去。于是抱着小孩子，给他们按手，为他们祝福。语境的问题，我刚才讲过了，第三次预言当中的一部分。然后，上面的故事，我们昨天谈到的是关于离婚娶妻的问题，娶妻休妻的问题，休妻另娶的问题，而主耶稣在那里面定了他们的罪，给他们定罪叫淫乱，奸淫，犯奸淫。记住这个背景对理解下面那个信息很重要，为什么这么说呢？因为他可以回答门徒为什么责备那些人。很多人是这么解释的，就是门徒为什么责备这些人，“责备”这个词非常强烈。就为什么，有人抱着孩子来见耶稣（应该是父母），门徒要责备他们呢？你看很多传道人都是这么讲的，说门徒很烦，很厌烦，厌烦小孩子。这个解释好像符合常识，但并不符合语境。因为如此极端不像是这样的一个道理，一定是因为跟上文有关联，等一下我再解释。然后再有一个更大的语境，我们记得前面有个哑巴鬼，是有一个小孩儿，那里面明确说这个小孩子被污鬼捆绑，这是上文。下文呢？一个少年的财主来找耶稣，后来就离开了耶稣。那里面不仅提到了少年的财主，“少年”这个词是在马太福音里面，这里面没有提，但是这里面有一个词是，这个财主说他“从小”就遵守了律法。那么这两个故事有什么关联呢？如果孩子不能从小就在基督这里面得到祝福，归入基督，往上走，他可能被魔鬼捆绑，往下走，那就是他如何从小明白圣经或者如何一直跟随主呢？所以这是上下文，都是联系起来的，涉及到一个最基本的真理，就是一个人的生命，从小一直到成年，应该一直住在基督里，否则的话，或者在魔鬼的权势下面，或者最后随着年龄的增长，随着对成人世界的模仿，他就会不断的离开主。大家明白这里面密切的逻辑关系。旧约一个很深刻的例子，我不知道你们想过没有，就是人类的第一个婴孩儿，该隐，他是怎样堕落的呢？我们要仔细看那些概念，你会发现，人类的第一个婴孩儿成了杀人凶手，这个悲剧本身和婴儿洗礼或者儿童救恩的真理是密切相关的。一个人，一个孩子，孩子最大的能力是什么？模仿。什么时候开始模仿？一出生就模仿，在母腹里就模仿，不然你干嘛给他胎教呢？孩子的模仿能力，这是奥秘，我不知道从哪一点开始，什么时候堕胎啊，这我不知道，这是生命的奥秘。反正就是孩子的模仿从起初就开始。他有两种模仿的对象，一个是罪人，一个是上帝。该隐的献祭模仿谁？模仿他父亲亚当，我怎么知道的？该隐是献地里的出产，谁是种地的？亚当是种地的。亚伯是牧羊的，他为什么用羊来献祭？因为创世纪第三章，上帝自己宰了羔羊，作皮子给亚当和夏娃穿。我们可以大体上得出这样一个结论，一个生命从最初最初开始，他就开始学习模仿，或者说我们换一个词，他在学习。学习是生命第一品质，那么你或者让他学罪人，就我们这些老亚当，跟我们学，学不出什么好东西来，越学越糙，就学成那个少年财主了，或者让他一出生，或者一有声音，就跟上帝学。怎么跟上帝学？等真理的圣灵降临，他要指教你们进入一切的真理。从什么时候开始的？我们太有限了，不知道。我们唯一能做的就是从开始开始的，只能从开始开始。好吧，我们这个语言太贫乏了。所以这里面我们能够看到上下文之间的联系，就是孩子的生命非常非常的重要。那么在路加福音里面，更明确的告诉我们，这个小孩子是婴孩儿，infant，婴孩儿。这是我们从语境的角度来看一下这段经文，我们应该怎样来解释它。

四节经文，我们大体分成三个部分。第一部分就是抗拒圣灵吧，就是我们再一次看到了门徒所代表的罪人完全无法理解孩子跟上帝的联系，非常愤怒，非常生气。然后14节到第15节，我们的主更愤怒，恼怒，然后把孩子的到来和神的国连在一起。16节，我们的主没有听门徒的，抱着小孩子给他们按手，为他们祝福，这都非常的重要。“抱”这个动词，然后“按手”这个动词，“祝福”这个动词给所有反对婴儿洗礼的人一个难题。如果孩子们是木头，没有信心，不能理解，我要告诉大家，所有这些动作毫无意义，你还不如抱一块木头。现在我们稍微再解释一下这些信息。

有人带着小孩子。“带着”这个动词是imperfect，就是一直带，很有可能就带过一次，被门徒赶走一次，接下来再带，坚持不懈。这些人，这些父母应该是有信心的人。小孩子，παιδίον，写的那个地方，然后来见耶稣。“婴孩儿”这个词在旧约当中最早出现的，其实指的就是割礼。婴孩儿，就是八天的婴孩要行割礼。那为什么不给一个小猪，一只小狗行割礼？因为人的婴孩是不一样的。所以反对婴儿洗礼的人很难把这个问题讲清楚。既然他什么都不知道，也没有信心，为什么要给他割礼呢？为什么？我们能不能这样讲，就是这个割礼从八天开始，慢慢慢慢他就懵懵懂懂的就知道了，那这是有可能的。有人带着小孩子来见耶稣。路加福音18章15节，有人抱着自己的婴孩儿，不是抱着别人家的孩子，不是拐卖儿童。不是我们说的，就是既然婴孩儿洗礼，满大街抓一个就行，不是的，抱着自己的孩子婴孩来见耶稣，要耶稣摸他们。“摸”这个动作让门徒感到非常的愤怒，一个重要的原因，如果我们回到旧约圣经当中去，这个动词出现最多的频率是在利未记，那里面大部分信息讲的是否定性的，就是不洁的东西，你绝不可以摸，摸，你就污秽了。但是他们不知道耶稣是上帝，在马可福音一章41节当中，让我们看见主耶稣摸污秽的人，污秽的人就得医治，所以这些信息都很重要。所以门徒之所以责备那些人，我个人认为，更合理的解释，是因为门徒认为那些人非常脏，包括他们的儿女都是非常非常的脏。为什么非常脏呢？没有语境，就没法解释。因为上文主已经告诉我们，圣经告诉我们，整个这一带，男人女人都犯了奸淫，这些孩子有可能都没有受割礼。按照旧约圣经的说法，没受割礼的人，拉出去处死。这是很严厉的。所以大家还记得上面的语境，耶稣把这些门徒带到屋里，然后跟这些门头教导他们说，说这些人都犯了奸淫。我估计这就很像我们，刚学到了一点圣经，半吊子，就特别的得热病嘛，就是不能跟魔鬼行淫乱，所以这些父母抱着孩子来，他们说no。这个他们很生气，他们这种生气肯定还以为在主那里面一定是特得主的喜悦，“你看，我们绝不跟这些人，沾染这个污秽”，应该是这样一个背景。

门徒便责备那些人，那些人显然不是指婴孩儿，显然是指他们的父母。14节，耶稣看见了，就恼怒，对门徒说。在马可福音当中，对耶稣的恼怒有一些比较重的描述。这个道理我以前讲过了，就是我们的主不是拈花微笑的那个假神，爱才会愤怒，越爱耶和华的一定是恨恶罪恶。还有一点，这种情绪性的东西，肉身上的东西，真正的基督徒，你不要把它放到一个律法的高度。人有情绪，人有情感很正常，你这不是什么大不了的事情，慢慢更新吧，而有的情感是神所喜悦的，而且主如此恼怒，一定是因为婴孩来到主的面前，涉及到了神国极为重要的真理。今天我们就更加的明白了，如果拒绝孩子们进入基督的救恩，那就意味着人类在大范围内的，一代一代的在失去救恩。在某种意义上，我们就知道这正是基督教在西方衰败的秘密。我们最愚蠢的，基督教最愚蠢的就是，总认为让孩子们长大，然后让他们自己来决定。我们上当了，亲爱的弟兄姊妹，当我们相信了这套魔鬼的谎言的时候，你会发现魔鬼从来没有闲着，他一天一天的覆盖我们儿童的心灵。当他们17岁、18岁的时候，你会发现他们已经成长了为那位少年的财主，你根本没有办法再把他带到教会来，这教训太惨重了。那然后你问问我们自己，那什么时候开始？从婴孩儿嘛。这是我们简单的讲这两句话。

再往下看，让小孩子到我这里来，不要禁止他们。因为神国的正是这样的人。大家看这句话很重要，就是他不是说让父母把小孩子抱到我这里来，不要禁止父母。这里面说的是让小孩子到我这里来，所以我们可以从角两个角度来讲，一个就是那个动词ἀφίημι，就是让谁谁来，它是一个middle和passive结合的一个语态。这是什么意思？孩子本身有愿意来的灵，有愿意来的意愿，没谁强迫他们。但是由于他肉身上的软弱，又用passive的意思，就是还是要由他的父母带来，大家明白我的意思了吗？所以孩子们愿意接受耶稣基督作救主，这是神，圣灵和孩子们之间的奥秘，同时也借着他的父母来成全这一场救恩。我希望我把它讲清楚了，否则的话，这个说法是不成立的，正常的说法一定是，主说，让孩子的父母把他抱来吧，对吗？可是主不是这么说的，主说让小孩子，主语，到我这里来，不要拦阻他们，他们自己愿意来，要来，一定是这样一个道理。因为在神国正是这样的人，我实在告诉你们，凡要承受神国的，若不像小孩子，断不能进去。于是抱着小孩子，给他们按手，为他们祝福。这些动作讲的都是主对这些孩子的爱。如果有人说，是不是所有的小孩子都是这样？我想肯定不是这样的，这是特指这些小孩子。如果所有的孩子，按照反对婴孩儿洗礼人的那个道理，所有的孩子都得救，其实整个的圣经记载这些东西毫无意义，你明白吗？那有什么意义呢？抱不抱有什么意义呢？按不按手有什么意义呢？祝福不祝福有什么意义呢？反正孩子们都得救。那我们唯一的合乎逻辑的结论就是，这些被抱的小孩子，这些被按手的小孩子，这些被祝福的小孩子是神国的人。否则的话，这是个常识嘛，那为什么会这样呢？所以圣经记载无非是说，这些信基督的父母，带着他们刚刚有信心，信心萌芽的孩子们得到了主耶稣的祝福，这个按手不是可有可无的。

我是先简单的把这些信息给大家检索一下，然后接下来我们可能要看一个讲道，看一个视频。我今天是这样来安排讲课的时间的，我们的课程不是一场主日的正道，严格来说，我们是一场门徒的培训。因为大部分学生将来是要做牧师的，或者有一部分。而婴孩洗礼是我们必须传讲的真理，也是我们将来一定会碰到的。所以我今天给大家介绍一位老牧师，在美国很有名气，很有代表性。他也在讲马可福音十章13到16节。他曾经专门讲过一篇道，就是坚决的抨击婴孩儿洗礼。今天他要借着马可福音这段经文，再一次地讲，反对婴孩儿洗礼的道理。我们必须要面对这样的传道人，而且我要告诉大家，他是改革宗浸信会的牧师，而浸信会在西方是第一大宗派，他所讲的是代表了所谓基督教的主流，我们必须驳倒他，但是我们不是为了驳倒而驳倒。我给大家看这个视频两个目的，第一，我们做牧师做传道人，我们能从他的这种解经和传道当中学哪些功课或者教训，你要仔细的听，就是看他这种释经，问题在哪里，他是怎样把一节经文的某种可能性变成了现实性，然后从这个假设的前提进一步推出确定性的结论，这是我们讲道要特别特别小心的，异端都是从这里出来的。第二，他几乎穷尽了所有反对婴孩儿洗礼的道理，我们今天要靠着主，靠着圣经一一加以拆毁，这是我们今天要学的功课，求神帮助我们。大约50分钟吧，我们可能在这个问题上停留的时间稍长一点，中间我会插话。整个的讲道是英语的，但英语不是很难，大部分讲的都是圣经的消息。

我们首先看到所有的福音派的教师都愿意把哥林多前书2章2节拿出来做标签，就是福音派，特别是那个报牧师专业的弟兄姊妹，一定要有能力把他驳倒。

It was a few years ago now that I wrote a little book called Safe in the Arms of God. This was a little book that explains what happens to babies that die. Again, I felt it was very important because there was no such book in existence at the time, as there is no such book in existence as the slave book. Once in a while you come across something that needs to be addressed.

But the little book, Safe in the Arms of God, really came out of a panel discussion that I had, a national conference where there were five or six pastors seated on the platform and there were several thousand people in the audience, and they were asked to convey questions, and we were supposed to answer the questions.

The question that came from one of the participants was, “What happens to babies that die?” This was a couple who lost a baby in death, and they wanted to know where the baby was. And I was the guy at the end of the line, so they started at the other end, asking each man what he thought, and there was a constant repetition, “We’re not sure,” “We’re not sure,” “I can’t really say,” “I don’t know,” and by the time it got to me, I was really ready to say something other than that.

So, I said, “Well, with all due respect, I think the Bible does tell us what happens to babies that die.” And I gave the answer, which, of course, turned out to be a tremendous encouragement to the people who’d lost a baby and many others who had lost them, sometimes even in miscarriage or perhaps had a severely retarded child that never really got intellectually beyond infancy or early childhood. It turned out to be such an encouragement that I decided to put it in a book, Safe in the Arms of God, and I’m glad for that.

Here we are again at this same subject in Mark. We looked at it in Matthew 19 when we went through Matthew sometime in another lifetime long ago. This same passage, this same incident is recorded in Matthew 19:13 to 15. We looked at this same incident again in Luke a number of years ago because it’s recorded in Luke 18:15 to 17. So Matthew 19 and Luke 18 record this as does Mark chapter 10, verses 13 to 16. We’re in Mark 10:13 to 16.

All three of what we know as the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because they give us a synopsis of the life of Christ, whereas John doesn’t give us a synopsis of the life of Christ, his gospel focuses more on select miracles and select statements made by Jesus. But the three synoptics give us this same incident, and we’re going to be looking at Mark’s record of it.

Verse 13. “They were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, ‘Permit the children to come to me, do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.’ And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them.”

You know, for many people and even for many commentators, this is a passage to be overlooked. This is something to kind of skip through because it doesn’t seem to carry much import. But quite the contrary, it’s one of the really most important passages in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because it answers this very vast, far-reaching question of what happens to babies that die. And since through the history of the world and counted millions of children have died in infancy or early childhood and they continue to do so even in the world today, it is a huge question to answer.

Where are all the souls of all those children that have died? This is the passage that, more than any, answers that question, and I think it answers it very, very clearly. What we see here is the Lord blessing these little children, and God doesn’t bless those who are cursed, and Jesus never pronounced a blessing on any other than a person who belonged in His kingdom. So this is a very unique situation where our Lord blesses little children.

Now, this runs in the face of the apostate Judaism that dominated the land of Israel at the time because the Jews were convinced that you earned your way to heaven, you earned your way to heaven by good works. Children couldn’t do that. They couldn’t accomplish good works. They couldn’t do good works. They didn’t know the difference between good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness. They were, therefore, not even to be considered as viable in discussions of the kingdom of God, and I think it is against that background that our Lord does something here that is absolutely shocking.

And it is shocking not only to the crowd that is watching and the Pharisees who were in the crowd, but it is even shocking to the disciples who have imbibed that Pharisaic legalistic system to the degree that they see children as irrelevant to spiritual life, eternal life, and the kingdom. And so this violates the conventional wisdom, Jesus identifying people as a part of His kingdom who couldn’t do anything to earn it, to gain it. It then becomes for us a powerful illustration that salvation is by grace. There may not be a more powerful illustration of salvation by grace than this.

At the same time, it is conversely a rebuke of self-righteous legalism. In fact, I’m prone to think that the best illustration in the gospels of salvation grace is this one because babies are enfolded in the kingdom who have done absolutely nothing to earn it. They are part of the kingdom. Secondarily, they are an illustration of all those who are also part of the kingdom because unless you come like a child, our Lord says in verse 15, self-confessedly weak, helpless, unworthy, dependent, humble, with nothing to commend yourself, you can’t enter the kingdom.

So two things go on in this passage. One, the Lord reminds us of a principle that’s repeated several times in the New Testament, that the way you enter the kingdom is in childlike faith. But beyond that, not only do believers come as children but children themselves have a special place in the kingdom. Babies, in fact, serve as an apt illustration of those who enter the kingdom and receive its blessing because they can do nothing to earn it. And again I say, this is a shocking moment in the ministry of Jesus for the Jews and the disciples who had bought into it.

And by the way, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all follow up this incident with the story of the rich, young ruler. You remember that story is the classic example of a self-righteous, religious Jew who, though self-righteous and religious, had no place in the kingdom. This is a man who said, “I’ve kept all the law since my youth,” and this man had no place in the kingdom, and here are babies who couldn’t keep the law at all, and they have a place in the kingdom. This is a dramatic contrast.

Let’s get into the story. They were bringing children to Him. And I think – stop right there for a minute to say that this was probably a very common thing that happened to our Lord, that they brought children to Him because of His great affection. Back in chapter 9, verse 36, it pictures Him picking up a little child, folding that little child into His arms in a very tender and loving fashion. Jesus did show great affection on a number of occasions for children.

He also received praise from children (Matthew 21:15 and 16) when He entered into Jerusalem. The children were saying “Hosanna” to Him. But He wasn’t sentimental about children because in Matthew 11:16 to 18, He told a story about how peevish children could be and how recalcitrant they could be and how obstinate they could be when they played their games in the marketplace. So Jesus had a great affection for children.

Jesus received praise from children (“Out of the mouth of babes, God brings forth praise”), but He wasn’t sentimentalized about them. He understood them to be sinful and He knew that that sin manifested itself even in their early activities as children together. But He would have welcomed them on any occasion, and so they were bringing children to Him, they, meaning parents.

“Children” here is paidia, just a general word, but Luke uses the word brephos, that’s babies, that’s infants, sucklings, little children – we’re talking perhaps up to three or four. That’s who we have here in view. They’re bringing their babies. We know they’re babies because verse 16 says He enfolded them in His arms. People are bringing their babies to Jesus, parents who saw His love and saw His power and saw His majesty and heard His preaching about the kingdom and His teaching about salvation and about eternal life, and these are parents who care about the future of their children.These are parents who want their children to know God, they want their children to be a part of the kingdom of God, they want their children to have eternal life, as any sensible parents would.

There’s some history for this. There are Old Testament illustrations of how fathers blessed their children. There are a number of them. All through the patriarchal period, fathers blessed their children, Noah blessed Shem and Japheth, and we see that through the patriarchs, through Jacob and passed down to the next generation and the next, Isaac blessing his sons and Jacob blessing his sons, and this was a typical fatherly benediction pronounced on the heads of children.

What was it about? It was a desire, including a prayer, for their spiritual blessing. It was that God would show favor to them. In fact, it was even more specific. The elders used to say that when you pray for your child and you pray blessing on your child, you pray this, that the child would be famous in the law, faithful in marriage, and abundant in good works. Famous in the law, faithful in marriage, and abundant in good works. The father would lay his hands on the child’s head, the elders of the synagogue would come together and they would do the same and bless the child, and they would pray for the child.

The Talmud tells us that it was a very customary thing for parents to bring their children, their little children, to be blessed by the elders of the synagogue, and in Judaism, there was a special day set aside for this, the day before the Day of Atonement, the day before Yom Kippur. In fact, they would bring their children that day before praying that, of course, the atonement the next day would be applied to those children.

Now, in Matthew’s version of this, Matthew 19:13, he says – just to give you the full picture – they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them and pray for them – and pray for them. And that’s consistent with this kind of blessing. This kind of blessing was in the form of a prayer, the prayer that God would pour out on this life all the goodness that would lead that child to become famous in the law, faithful in marriage, and do good works. That’s exactly what was going on here.

They also wanted Jesus to touch the child. Jesus did everything by touching. He healed with a touch. He touched people all the time, which is exactly what the Pharisees and the scribes never did. They wouldn’t touch people because they would be defiled. Here was Jesus, compassionate, tender to the touch. So the purpose in bringing them was that He might touch them because that’s what fathers did. They laid their hands on the child, and the elders laid their hands on the child as the patriarchs had done, and then they prayed blessing.

I believe this is prayer for salvation. The Jews understood salvation, deliverance from judgment, deliverance from sin, deliverance from punishment. I can’t help but think that parents wanted their children saved, they wanted their children blessed by God with eternal life.

From the Jewish perspective, they wanted God to do whatever He needed to do in their lives to chase them down the right path of works so that they could gain their salvation. But this was so contrary to the conventional wisdom of Judaism that immediately the disciples rebuked these parents. The disciples. These are the ones who believe in Jesus, these are the ones who have left legalism and Judaism behind, and they rebuke them.

And that is a very strong word, epitimaō, a compound word intensified again by a preposition as verbs tend to be in the Greek language. Literally, it means they censured them or they reprimanded them. In a noun form, it means punishment. They turned on these parents. Their worldview, their religious worldview, was such that children had no place in the system of religion, no place before God, not until they arrived at the point where they could do the things they needed to do to gain God’s favor.

So while they had come to salvation by grace, they had imbibed so much of their former system (salvation by works) that they didn’t think children fit in anywhere. And, of course, the Lord hadn’t apparently said anything to this point about the children, so this is their teaching moment. They strongly protest this group of parents who desired the Lord to bless their babies and pray for their babies, convinced that this would just be an unnecessary, trivial interruption.

And, again, if you just took a Greek New Testament, took the word epitimaō and started in Mark 3 and traced it through Mark 10, you would see that every time it’s used, it’s a very intense reprimand. So the disciples really let those parents have it. But they were absolutely wrong. They were absolutely wrong.

Jesus responds in verse 14, “When Jesus saw this” – when He saw the attitude of the disciples and He saw them chastening back these parents, He also responded in a severe way. “He was indignant” – again, a very strong verb, to be angry, to be irate. This is not an insignificant issue, not a minor issue. Jesus doesn’t pass over this lightly. He is very angry that they would treat children this way. The parents were not wrong. He did not rebuke the parents. Only the disciples were rebuked for their wrong assumptions and their bad understanding of Scripture.

And Luke says, “He then called for the parents” who had already probably turned and were moving away, He called for them “to come and bring their babies to Him.” He gives no indication of the spiritual condition of the parents. He gives no indication of the possibility of faith in the parents or unbelief in the parents or the child’s faith because those are non-issues. A baby could have no faith. A baby is neither a conscious non-believer or a conscious believer. A baby is neither a compliant child nor a rebellious child by choice.

So here, our Lord blesses little babies who were neither believers nor unbelievers, neither receivers nor rejecters of divine salvation truth. And again I say this is very significant because Jesus doesn’t pronounce blessing on people outside His kingdom, all of whom are cursed. His response is anger over this because this is a very important truth to understand. And maybe that’s why I felt my own indignation rising as I listened to these guys not giving the right answer.

Verse 14. “But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them,” to the disciples, “‘Permit the children to come to me. Do not hinder them. Let them come.’” Let them come. And then in a present – “Don’t even forbid them, let them come,” and there would be many of them perhaps, “Let them all come as they will.” The coming of these babies to Jesus, then, is very important, so important that not to do it made Him angry. Very important.

Why? End of verse 14 – and here’s the key: “For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The kingdom of God belongs to such as these. There are no qualifiers there. Okay? There are no caveats there. There are no conditions there. This is so very important. He doesn’t say the kingdom of God belongs to these as if somehow these particular babies were in the kingdom. He says the kingdom of God belongs to such as these, meaning the whole category or the whole class of beings to which these babies belong. Literally, the kingdom of God belongs to these kind, babies, infants, little children.

Matthew calls it the kingdom of heaven and says the same thing, it belongs to such as these. Not just to these but to the whole category to which these belong. The kingdom of God belongs to babies. They have a place in the kingdom. They have a part in the kingdom.

这是非常有名的一个释经的缺陷，大家听出来没有？他现在做了一个非常非常本质的飞跃，就是她从哪里越到哪里呢？就是，按照经文，他讲神的国属于这些婴孩儿，然后他突然飞跃到所有的婴孩儿都会进入神的国。他现在已经开始飞跃了。但是，这两者之间，你要是不仔细听，就会完全听不出来，等一下他会继续得出这个结论。他最后的结论是，所有夭折的婴孩儿都在天国里。这是很可怕的，因此他们不需要洗礼。

What is He talking about, the kingdom? He’s talking about the sphere of salvation – the sphere of salvation – same thing He was always talking about. The sphere in which God rules over those who belong to Him, the spiritual domain in which souls exist under His special care.

Now, what’s important here is He just said that babies, as a category, have a part in the kingdom. They belong to it, it belongs to them, same thing.

我再打断一下，他这里有一个概念的偷换，是什么呢？就这些婴孩儿被他偷换为所有的婴孩儿，听的出来吗？这太可怕了，这个神学非常非常的危险。

Nothing is said about the parents’ faith, nothing is said about a covenant as if there was some family covenant. Nothing is said about baptism. Nothing is said about circumcision. Nothing is said about any rite, any ritual, any parental promise, parental covenant, or any national covenant. His words simply and completely engulf all babies. They belong to the kingdom; the kingdom belongs to them.

And if our Lord was ever going to teach infant baptism, this would have been the perfect spot. All He would have to have said was, “These children will possess the kingdom if you baptize them.” But He doesn’t say that.

他说，这个跟婴孩儿洗礼没有关系。

This was His golden opportunity, but He said nothing, and neither does anybody else in the Bible say anything about infant baptism. This is not about personal faith, either. He doesn’t commend the parents’ faith. He doesn’t commend the babies’ faith, which would be nonexistent. He simply says babies belong in the kingdom and the kingdom belongs to them, as a category.

他说婴孩儿没有信仰，婴孩儿没有信仰。

What are we talking about here? What we’re saying here is that babies, when they are babies, before they reach a point in time when before God they become accountable for believing or not believing, are under special divine care. They have a place of care in His kingdom. He doesn’t say elect babies are in the kingdom, as some would espouse, and non-elect babies are not. He doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say elect babies being in the kingdom will go to heaven; non-elect babies not being in the kingdom will go to hell. He doesn’t say that. He simply says categorically babies are in the kingdom, the kingdom belongs to them.

Now, does this mean they’re not sinners? No, it doesn’t, as you well know. Doesn’t mean that at all. Psalm 51:5, David says, “In sin did my mother conceive me, I was brought forth in iniquity” from the get-go. Genesis 5:3, “We’re all made in Adam’s likeness, and in Adam we all die,” we’re all corrupt, John 3:6, “Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh.” “There’s none righteous, no not one.” You know all of that, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked and who can know it?”

好，再停一下，前面他重点论述的就是婴孩儿不需要洗礼，婴孩儿没有信仰，所有的婴孩儿属于神的国，神的国是由婴孩儿组成的，或者至少神的国有一部分是给婴孩儿的，所有的婴孩儿，这是第一个论点。现在他转过头来论述第二个问题，开始了。就大量的引用旧约的经文，圣经的经文来证明孩子是有罪的，孩子是罪人。你一定要仔细听，然后你就有一个问题，那有罪的人怎么能进入神的国呢？第三点，他的结论就是完全靠神的恩典。这里面有两点，他讲的都非常好，我们都是完全阿门的。第一就是所有的孩子都是小罪人，第二有些孩子得救，或者孩子得救是靠神的恩典。都没有问题。但是，最后我们看，这里面的矛盾。好，现在他在论述孩子们都是罪人。

These are little sinners. Balled up in that little, precious, infant bundle is the full corruption of fallen humanity in its totality. The Bible is absolutely clear that all children are sinners from conception, Psalm 51, the principle of iniquity is embedded in their persons. Mark 7, “It’s not what comes to a person from the outside that defiles him, it’s what comes up from the inside that defiles.” The defilement is inherent, it’s on the inside. It’s embedded. Iniquity is embedded in the fabric of their lives.

The idea that children are sort of born as morally neutral is not true – is not true. They are morally corrupt and irresistibly bent toward sin. They are not neutral. They are corrupt.

孩子们不是无罪的，不是道德中立的，完全败坏。

It just takes a while for them to reach the place where they can make the choices that evidence that corruption. There has been a view through church history that children are morally innocent and morally pure until they choose to sin. That’s Pelagianism, still around in the form of semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism, and it says we don’t have to sin; when we do sin, that’s when we fall.

By the way, that view was denounced as heresy after the death of Pelagius. Elements of it still float around today. Infants are not morally neutral, they are sinful, and how do we know that? Because the wages of sin is death and babies die. Death is the evidence of corruption. If they were morally neutral, they wouldn’t die until they had reached a point where they made conscious choices about sin, but some of them die in the womb and some of them die minutes after, days after, months after, as you know.

Children at that point in life have not chosen consciously to sin. They have not chosen to join Adam and Eve’s rebellion. But they’re corrupt, and that’s why they die – that’s why they die. And when they reach the age where they can make choices – and they get there pretty quick – they make bad ones and the Bible says, “Get the rod because you’re going to have to drive that out of them.” Infants who survive all grow up to be corrupt adults. There is no man who does not sin, 1 Kings 8:46. The wicked are estranged from the womb, Psalm 58:3, they go astray from birth.

Proverbs 20, verse 9, “Who can say, ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from sin?’ No one.” Ecclesiastes 7:20, “Indeed there’s not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” “There’s none righteous, no not one,” Romans 3. Sinfulness is not a condition that comes on people once they choose to do evil. Sinfulness is a condition they’re born in that leads them to choose evil. The entire human race is in that condition.

So what we’re not saying is that children belong to the kingdom because they’re morally neutral and uncorrupted. That is not true. They are corrupt. They are not morally neutral, they are morally flawed, profoundly flawed. They are in a fallen, sinful state, that’s why death can invade their lives at any point, even in the womb and afterwards.

We are not born innocent, we are born guilty of Adam’s sin, and we are born corrupt, having inherited Adam’s nature. Proverbs 22:15, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child” or Genesis 8:21, “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” and youth in the Hebrew is the word for childhood and encompasses infancy, from the very get-go. Isaiah 48:8, “I know that you would deal very treacherously and were called a transgressor from the womb.”

So all are conceived and born infected with sin, corrupt motives, attitudes, desires, ambitions, and objectives. Then, if they’re in the kingdom, in any sense, it is an act of grace. Okay? It’s an act of grace because they didn’t earn it. And they’re not in there because they’re morally neutral. It’s an act of grace. It is an act of grace by which the Lord grants to these little ones a place in the kingdom – a place in the kingdom. They are sinners. The death principle is already in them, and they will all eventually die, some in infancy.

But in the early years, they’re not responsible for their spiritual lives, they’re not responsible for their choices between sin and righteousness. And so if they belong to the kingdom at all, it is because they have come under special grace by which they belong to God until the time when they reach the condition of being personally accountable, and that’s a different point in time for every individual. And that’s the message of that verse.

You say, “Well, now, wait a minute. You mean that they are saved? You mean they have received salvation? Then when they reach the age where they’re accountable, they lose it? You mean God gives them salvation? Gives them eternal life and then takes it away?” Well, since eternal life can’t be taken away, by definition, eternal life is eternal, that’s not what I mean. What I mean is what Jesus must have meant. That He holds them in some state of grace, prior to their reaching the age of accountability. That state of grace is conditional.

You say, “Well, what’s it conditioned on?” It becomes eternal life – it becomes eternal life if they die – if they die. If an infant dies, that infant, I believe, is gathered safe in the arms of God.

This is evident, I think, in many Old Testament passages that I want you to think with me about briefly (and there’s more on this in the book). Deuteronomy 1:39, I’ll just mention these to you – Deuteronomy 1:39 – you can look them up later – refers to little ones who have no knowledge of good or evil – little ones who have no knowledge of good or evil. They have no true understanding as to their condition, evil, they have no understanding as to the remedy, what is good, what is right. They have no such knowledge. They exist, then, in a unique category.

Another way to look at it would be in Jeremiah 19:4, where infants, being offered to Molech as burnt offerings, babies being burned on the fire in Gehenna – we talked about that a little bit ago, a place called Topheth. Topheth is what it was called because that’s the Hebrew word for drum, and they beat drums there all the time to drown out the screams of the burning babies. But they’re referred to by Jeremiah in 19:4 as the blood of the innocent – the blood of the innocent.

They are not the children of covenant parents, they are not the children of faithful parents, they’re the children of people offering them to Molech. The faith (or lack of faith) of their parents has no meaning. In God’s eyes, their parents are shedding the blood of the innocents.

In Jonah chapter 4, when Jonah went to destroy Nineveh and instead to tell them, “We’re going to be destroyed,” and then God instead brought a revival when they repented, the book of Jonah closes in chapter 4 in verse 11 when God says, “Why would I destroy this city when there are a hundred and twenty thousand who don’t know the right hand from the left?” Judgment is not appropriate, in that sense, on little ones. When does a child find out the difference between his right and his left? Three years old? Wouldn’t be appropriate. They don’t deserve that divine judgment.

In Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel is condemning the pagans who offered their children to Molech.

稍等一下，大家看他现在在论述什么呢？就是他承认孩子们，小孩儿都是败坏的，都是小罪人。但是他现在讲另外一个观点，就是虽然孩子们都是罪人，但孩子们受到的这种审判和咒诅是不公平的。因为孩子们没有能力对自己的这些命运承担责任。这里面充满了矛盾。好，接着来。

Again, it’s the same thing. They, to satisfy this horrendous, demonic fabrication of a deity called Molech (or Moloch sometimes), they burned their babies – they burned their babies. And in Ezekiel 16, God, speaking of the babies of pagans, said, “You’re slaughtering my children” – my children. This is very much like what we’re looking at in Mark 10. God has a special place for these innocents, a special place for those He deems to be “my children.” These are not children of baptized believers or covenant believers, these are the children of pagans.

And maybe one of the most interesting illustrations of all this is in 2 Samuel chapter 12 where David, you remember, had a horrible sin with Bathsheba. She became pregnant and had a baby. He murdered her husband, in effect, by putting him in a place in the battle where he was going to be killed and isolating him. Well, then God gave them that child, gave her that child, and immediately God struck the child, and the child died in its infancy.

And when the child – before the child died, when it was very ill, David was crying out to God, and he was praying, and he was pleading with God because he felt such overwhelming guilt for what he had done, murder and adultery, and all that. He’s praying out to God, 2 Samuel chapter 12, and he cries out to God and the baby dies.

他现在在讲大卫和拔示巴生的那个孩子死的问题。

His prayer is not answered. The baby dies. And the folks who worked with David had a discussion. They said, “We’d better not say anything to him, we’d better not go in and tell him the baby died, because look how overwrought he was, how sad he was, how sorrowful he was when the baby was sick. Don’t tell him the baby died, it’ll be worse.”

Well, they had to tell him, so they went in and said the baby died. Immediately he stopped his mourning, stopped his sorrowing, got up, washed his face, got dressed, came out. It was over, and he said this: “He cannot come to me, but I will go to him.” He cannot come to me – I will go to him. I’ve actually read commentators who say David found comfort in the fact that he would be buried in the same cemetery as his son. Are you kidding me? What kind of comfort is that? Not a whole lot of comfort to think about being buried in any place. That’s not the point.

David knew where he was going and he knew where that child was. How did he know where that child was?

大卫的这个例子是改革宗经典的逻辑，就是你要到所有的加尔文教会，改革宗，都是这一套。就是大卫的儿子一定上天国了，所以大卫说我死了以后也一定会去那里。这是他们反对婴孩儿洗礼一个特别重要的证据。好，继续。

Because God had given him the confidence that the child had entered into His presence. This isn’t some strange doctrine. Children were considered in that unique category, and when they died, they were gathered to God. If they didn’t die, they grew older or hit the point of accountability and then were responsible for what was going on. They weren’t saved before that, but God saved them when they died. David said, “He cannot come to me, I will go to him.”

我现在请大家思考一个问题，是什么呢？大卫拔示巴的那个孩子进天国，这件事儿是不是确据？如果不是，如果是一种可能性，那么接下来他所有的论述都是建立在沙滩上。但是人是这么的有缺陷的，开始是可能性，第一步。第二步就变成确定性，第三步就变成真理了。这是非常麻烦的，我们讲圣经，千万千万要小心这一点。他自己现在已经把……开始，他百分之五十，现在他把它当做百分之百了，接下来又当成百分之二百来讲了。这就是问题。好，继续

Contrast that six chapters later in chapter 18 when Absalom (his wretched rebel son who tried to lead a coup and destroy his own father and take away his kingdom) died a horrible death, and David went into mourning. And he kept mourning and – “O Absalom, Absalom.” Chapter 18 ends, “O Absalom, Absalom.” You go into chapter 19, “O Absalom, Absalom, Absalom.” And he just keeps moaning over this kid whose death was the right thing to happen to such a corrupt young man. And the difference was he knew he would see the baby again, but he knew he would never see Absalom again. So David’s confidence was that that child was in the presence of God.

In 1 Kings 14, King Jeroboam was a very wicked king and he led his people into profoundly wicked idolatry – terrible, terrible things – again, perverse things. Again, he was offering children on the altar – just horrible kinds of evil. So in 1 Kings 14, the judgment of God comes down on him, and it is severe judgment. God is angry about his molten images. God is furious with him. And so in verse 10 of 1 Kings 14, He says, “I’m bringing calamity on the house of Jeroboam. I’ll cut off from Jeroboam every male person, both bond and free in Israel.

“I’ll make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam as one sweeps away dung until it’s all gone. Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs will eat; and he who dies in the field, the birds of the heavens will eat; for the Lord has spoken.” I don’t want any of them buried, I want their bodies desecrated and eaten as carrion, road kill, all of them.

Verse 12, “Now you arise, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child will die,” a baby. “All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him” – most interesting – “for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave because in him, something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel.” There was something different about a baby. Something good was found. What was good? He was the only one in Jeroboam’s family who hadn’t openly rebelled against God. Was he a sinner? Of course, all children are, all infants are, but he had not knowingly rebelled against God.

It’s the same thing. There’s a special place in God’s care for those who are in infancy and not responsible for spiritual choices. And that’s what we see in this passage, and it’s consistent through Scripture.

As a confirmation from history, I’ll read you a fairly good theologian by the name of John Calvin. He said this, “Those little children have not yet any understanding to desire His blessing, but when they are presented to Him, He gently and kindly receives them and dedicates them to the Father by a solemn act of blessing.” He’s describing what Jesus did here. “It would be cruel to exclude that age from the grace of redemption. It is an irreligious audacity to drive from Christ’s fold those whom He held in His arms and shut the door on them as strangers when He did not wish to forbid them.”

This is not salvation, but this is His special care. And in the event that the child dies, I think the testimony of Scripture is that child receives salvation at the point of death because of God’s sovereign grace. Another way to look at it is to understand that all babies that die are elect. They’re all saved. Christ’s sacrifice is applied to them all.

这里的中文翻译完全是不对头了。他的结论是所有死亡的婴孩儿都是选民，是这么个意思。所有死亡夭折的婴孩儿都是选民，都是被上帝拣选的，这是上帝特殊的恩典，特殊的观照。往下看。

Charles Hodge, nineteenth century Presbyterian theologian, wrote, “He tells us of such is the kingdom of heaven as though heaven was in great measure composed of the souls of redeemed infants.” No less a theologian than Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (who graduated Princeton Seminary) in 1876 wrote, “If all that are in infancy are saved, it can only be through the abrupt operation of the Holy Spirit, who rules when and where and how He pleases, through whose ineffable grace the Father gathers these little ones to the home He has prepared for them.”

Warfield also said, “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own.” And that’s why we say, in terms of Reformed Theology, there isn’t a greater illustration of sovereign grace and election than the salvation of a child that dies because the child can make no contribution – and that’s a model for the salvation of anyone.

Warfield goes on to say, “Their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills, and if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation. This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world.”

Babies that die, he’s saying, are elect from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved but doubtless the majority of the human race have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway. So says Warfield. So when a baby dies, that baby is saved, which means God providentially allowed that death because that’s an elect baby.

Do you understand the implications of this in countries that are full of Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and every other kind of bizarre religion, and we always worry about all the babies that die? They’ll be in heaven. That’s the glorious reality.

大家看到了，这已经不再是基督教了，全世界所有的婴孩儿都进天国。是不是这个意思？借着看。

The point is that this great work of salvation for infants and children who die before the condition of accountability shows the special place they have in the kingdom under the unique care of the King. Born sinners, objects of wrath, but until they reject the truth consciously, they’re His special care.

1. A. Webb addresses this in a book that he wrote in 1907 called The Theology of Infant Salvation. He said this: “If a dead infant were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment because sin is a reality, but the child’s mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering.

“It couldn’t tell itself why it was so awfully smitten and, consequently, the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation,” end quote. If babies that die go to hell, then they don’t know why they’re there, forever they don’t know why they’re there. Doesn’t make sense.

So the Lord says, then, in addition, in verse 15, “Truly I say to you, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” Now He moves from saying children are in the kingdom to saying anybody else who comes in the kingdom has to come like a child. You have to come the way children come – simple, open, trusting, unpretentious, dependent, weak, lacking achievement, humbly. And if you don’t come like that, you’ll never enter the kingdom.

So our Lord says, “These babies go into the kingdom purely by sovereign grace. They have nothing to commend themselves.” And this is the greatest illustration of how everybody goes into the kingdom who goes into the kingdom. It’s by sovereign grace, not because of your achievement. You have achieved no more than a baby could achieve. It’s a gift of grace. And thus John Calvin wrote, “The passage gives kingdom citizenship to both children and those who are like children.”

And again, this is a severe rebuke to the Pharisees and their followers and all who fit into their system of legalism. This is a deathblow to legalism. Do you understand that? It’s a powerful deathblow to legalism. The only possible way these children could ever be in heaven would be by sheer grace. Right? Sheer grace, that’s the only way anybody will ever be in heaven.

And then our Lord, in a wonderful gesture, punctuates the special place these children have in the kingdom. Verse 16, “He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them.” Mark’s the only one that records that part. He didn’t view them as a little heathen, little pagans. He took them in His arms.

Beautiful verb, it’s a long verb, so I won’t even pronounce it for you. But it’s one of those compound verbs that means to enfold in your arms, just like you would do a baby. He enfolded them, embraced them, and began blessing them, kateulogei.

好的，我们基本上就到此结束了。我们现在来讨论一下。太震撼，大家呢，因为可能是这个英语本身有一些问题，不明白你现在面对的是什么？这是现代基督教的主流的观点。我们现在是一小群，所以看这样的讲道，这是美国特别有名的一个牧师，不是NO.1，也排在前十位了。我自己是特别特别的绝望和难过，我们看到他多次引用了约翰加尔文的观点，实际上我们就知道，借着这样一个广受欢迎的讲道，我们就知道基督教在西方衰落的真正的原因，全都在这篇讲道里了。我们可以说，魔鬼借着约翰加尔文那些教义成功的达到了那些使徒没有达到的目的。这里面前后是一个致命的矛盾，是什么？如果所有的婴孩都可以得救，这些家长抱孩子到基督面前来是毫无意义的。而这正是现代基督教的历史，明白吗？这个逻辑很简单，如果所有的婴孩儿都得救，门徒何必阻止他们呢？那些家长何必抱孩子到基督这里来呢？这是很简单的一个逻辑。

大家有什么特别的感受，或者有什么想法，也可以现在讨论一下，谁有特别的想法？

学员：略

好的，我觉得马可后面讲得特别好，就是他后来不是建立在释经的基础之上，是建立在教义和神学的基础之上，这个是对的。前面是这样的，我稍微调整一下，前面他不是讲行为称义，他是在抨击犹太人的律法主义传统，他说犹太人认为这个孩子们得救，或者是人得救应该是因为行出律法来了，他完全反驳这一套，这点和我们的观点是一致的。他这里面有这么几个致命的问题，我先回应一下，然后弟兄姊妹有感动，我们再分享。第一，他整个的这个神学立足点有一个致命的错误，那就是罪的结局就是死亡，就所有的人，亚当以后，在上帝面前死亡应该是正常状态，他在心里面不能接受这一点，你感觉到吗？他绝对不可以接受这样的真理，这种真理对他来讲，对整个人类来讲，这是不可以接受，而圣经启示的，这是最基本的事实，就是我们该死下地狱是应该的，明白吗？这是圣经讲的道理，因此我们任何人得救都是怜悯，都是恩典，这才是我们读圣经一个基本的前提，他把这个前提搞反了，就是我们应该永远的活着，上帝让我们下地狱是不对的，这是他的一个逻辑，逻辑出发点就错了。第二点，就是所有的婴孩都得救，完全没有圣经根据，圣经没有任何一个地方讲过这个问题。但是正相反，正相反在哪里？就是有些婴孩下地狱是有足够的圣经的证据的，大洪水。整个大洪水那个时代的人都灭亡了，圣经明确的告诉我们，得救的人只有一家八口。那么在大洪水前，那么多的千千万万的人类，包括婴孩儿都灭亡了，没有办法。还有第三个事实，上帝说，违背我诫命的，我必追讨他的罪，从三代直到四代。你跟上帝讲什么道理呢？他的意思就是说，凭什么让三代四代的孩子们承受这个责任呢？这没有什么道理可讲，这怎么讲道理呢？因为上帝已经说了，吃的日子必定死。还有一个最大的矛盾，就是你既然承认所有的孩子都是罪人，然后你自己发明了一个教义，就是他们上天国完全出于神的特殊的关照，特殊的恩典，你的圣经根据在哪里？没有。你的意思就是，神的国会容纳一些罪人，会容纳一些没有理性的罪人，这个是完全颠覆了圣经最基本的真理。好的，还有哪一位？

学员：略

好的，我们可以这样来看，就是这套神学在实践上有一个巨大的麻烦，就是婴孩儿夭折，然后进天国，那么这个年龄你怎么划定？这完全没有办法操作。三个月，然后十四岁？你怎么判断呢？还有一点，按照他这个逻辑，孩子一生下来就该杀死，都上天国了，这多好啊，这是全世界最简单上天国的方法。那岂有此理吗？还有一个问题，就在于什么呢？就是这些人，一定讨人类的喜悦，孩子们都上天堂嘛。然后他们就会责问，如果孩子们不受洗下地狱，上帝的爱在哪里？上帝的爱不就在这句话吗？让小孩子到我这里来。你耳聋眼瞎呀，祂是何等的爱我们，祂因为爱我们的缘故把他的门徒都骂得狗血喷头，说让小孩子到我这里来，这不是祂的爱吗？祂已经给了我们道路真理和生命了，你自己不走，回过头来，你伪造了一个神学说，所有的孩子都上天国，那真是岂有此理。还有哪一位？好，谢谢。

学员：略

然后，改革宗，包括这位牧师，他们代表一个神学的潮流，是什么呢？就是每一次都千方百计把马可福音十章13到16节和洗礼的真理切割，就是这段经文跟婴孩儿洗礼没有关系。那对我们来讲，我们闭着眼睛也都知道，怎么会没有关系呢？唯一的这个时候没提到洗礼，是因为耶稣设立洗礼，不是这个时候。但这个真理肯定构成了洗礼的一个真理的根据。这个我等一下再跟大家讲，还有哪一位？好，请。

学员：略

房峥一提起加尔文主义，就气得说不出话来。

学员：略

而且上帝要让我们死，我们认为上帝该死，这就是加尔文主义，你知道吗？所以我们就一定要把上帝给伪造一下。

学员：略

我再补充一下，其实这套神学最后的结果你知道是什么？最终的结果就是让耶稣上十字架变得毫无意义，对吧？就是全人类都是从婴孩儿出生的，比如他们规定14岁或12岁，咱们集体死，算了。耶稣不需要来的，他说这段时间耶稣不需要来，我们直接上天堂就可以了，这是非常非常可怕的。所以这个理论看上去很动听，但是完完全全是没有一条有圣经的根据。他唯一拿得出来就是大卫的儿子，但是你在圣经当中看不到任何一条说，大卫的儿子在天国里，没有这样的证据。还有哪一位？

学员：略

我们今天早上还讨论这个问题，我们是这样想的，就是圣经整全的信息是胎儿也是罪人，这个没有分歧，这样的经文太多了。第二个结论就是罪的工价就是死，无一例外。第三个结论就是孩子们的罪，罪的那种深刻的程度超过我们的想象。很多人说孩子无罪，我给你举个最简单的例子，孩子们如果要是吃不饱的话，那种哭，那种撕咬，那是没有人能拦阻的，他只是没有犯罪的那么大的能力，但是他一定有罪，就是自私。我们用律法来讲，就是他不可能尽心尽意爱主你的神，又爱人如己。人一从母腹里面就是自私的，就是我们就是就敌上帝，任何一个生命都是个反基督。这种罪孽如此如此的深刻，因此最后上帝只有一个办法，让他儿子为我们死。如果我们的生命，我们的婴孩儿的生命有一点点盼望，主不需要来，不需要死，一定要记住这一点。就像卢梭一样，就是把我们婴孩儿里面的一点点所谓的自然天性发展出来，教育学就可以解决问题，不需要神学，明白吗？所以主一定要死，就是因为我们的败坏，他讲得非常好，就是全然的败坏。那最后有个问题，圣经当中有一个非常重要的一个等级序列的一个神学教育，那就是在天国里面审判是根据不同的罪作出不同的审判，赏赐根据你不同的贡献作出不同的赏赐，所以传道书这节经文无非在告诉我们，婴孩儿没有我的罪大，因为我活了50，年犯了太多的罪了，所以当审判的时候，他比我更得安息，这是有可能的。同样的话，我们刚才还说就是一个老人60岁80岁才受洗和你从三岁就受洗，侍奉主，在天上得到的赏赐是不一样的，那惩罚不一样，赏赐不一样，那到底是如何？我们这是神国的奥秘，不知道。我们的结论就是，不管那个婴孩儿没有出生，就被神带走了，有两种可能，一个他的父母是信主的，他直接上天国，那有可能，他的父母为他祷告。还有一种可能就是他父母本身就是敌基督或者反基督教的，那么这个孩子也会被审判。但是相对来讲，他比他父母受到的审判可能要少很多，我想只能这么解释。

还有哪位？

学员：这个牧师讲道，他怎么不穿牧师的衣服？

绝大部分西方的教会都不穿牧袍了，他们主流的教会讨厌我们穿牧袍，说我们假冒伪善，“法律赛人，穿着长袍”，

学员：意思是这个是在一个教堂里面？

是教堂，是教堂。

学员：那下面那些人看着还是就是年岁也不是很年轻，他们会相信他们讲的这些内容吗？

绝大部分都相信。

学员：他们不看圣经吗？

他们看不懂，他们需要CSMP。好，你们不一定都同意我的观点，有不同的，有坚决反对我的观点，支持他的，或者有更多的看见的，我们都欢迎，傅强

学员：略

傅强的这个问题个好问题，这正是我接下来要讲的，就是说，那么现在的教会为什么不像主一样，有一个献婴礼，有一个抱着祝福，为什么？因为那个时候还没有设立洗礼，现在已经设立了洗礼，那只能是按照圣洗礼来，而献婴礼这个词圣经上从来没有。你给我找到一个献婴礼？但你可以把主耶稣这个做法叫做献婴礼。那这个证据不足，圣经也没说是献婴礼。更重要的就是，主耶稣这个时候，

现在我来讲讲下面的信息，有问题，等下我们再讨论。翻到我们刚才那个PPT，我把看这个视频和读这段经文的结论告诉大家，我知道会有傅强弟兄这些问题，这些问题都非常好，非常重要，我们不着急。我们总结一下，我讲一个案例，讲的就是这位改革宗老牧师的讲法。我们今天是教义争论，不攻击他本人，他很多马可福音的讲道也给我很多祝福，很多圣经讲得还确实不错。但是整体的神学框架，特别像刚才这样的，真的是颠覆性的，而这一点构成了现代基督教堕落败坏的根基。我们现在来看一看圣经相关的真理，马可福音16章16节，主耶稣说，不用去查了，我直接告诉大家就行了。马可福音16章16节，就是信而受洗的必然得救。像这样的经文没有例外。没有说，括弧，婴孩儿除外，这是不可以的，就是所有的人信而受洗的必然得救，这是唯一的结论，没有办法了，圣经就是这么坚决，而主耶稣在他复活之前并没有设立洗礼，当然也没有设立婴孩儿的洗礼。主耶稣在复活之前没有设立洗礼，在复活之后设立的洗礼，他在复活之后设立的洗礼是针对普天下所有的人的，这个就包括婴孩儿。这个不需要我们括弧，因为婴孩儿是人，这不需要特别解释。然后马太福音28章18到20节，升天之前，你们往普天下去，然后呢？奉父子圣灵的名给他们施洗。特别大家要注意，你看奉圣子圣灵的名给他们施洗，然后才说凡我所教导你的都教训他们遵守，你要看英文的话就是，baptizing and teaching，不是反过来的，再一次让我们看到了洗礼和教导是一起往前推进的。然后路加福音一章15节，44节让我们看到施洗约翰在母腹当中就被圣灵充满了。这是一个特例也好，至少让我们知道施洗约翰是人，作为婴孩儿还是可以有信的。这超过人的理性的理解。所以我们再一次强调，你不要把信心跟理性混淆，如果孩子有信也不给他洗礼，这是我们要担的罪恶。那么施洗约翰是怎么有信呢？因为他父亲是祭司，所以这里面的逻辑都是可以平行的。然后约翰福音三章三节到五节，主谈到了神的国。怎么进神的国？若不借着水和圣灵生的，就不能进神的国。那么我们来问一问，马可福音刚才的经文，我们做统一的解释，还是做矛盾的解释？那就是说，按照这位老牧师的讲法，有些孩子不需要经过水和圣灵也能进神的国，还是说如果这些孩子要进神的，最终还是要经过水和圣灵？我们只能接受第二种解释，不然圣经就是矛盾的。大家明白吗？所以约翰福音14章17章宣告什么？圣灵要降临，圣灵要降临了。圣灵降临之后，才有设洗礼的必要。那么在主耶稣设立洗礼之前的人，是不是都没有得救呢？不是。他们是怎么得救的？他们是在预表的意义上的洗礼当中得救的，或者我们用以前讲的一个道理，十字架复活之后的这个洗礼的真理同时也往前覆盖。但是我们自己毕竟生活在设立洗礼之后的时代里面，我们只能尊重水和圣灵得救这个真理。没得选择，你要选择，你不会找到别的证据，没有证据。

然后现在我们来看使徒行传二章38到39节，彼得说的特别的清楚，圣灵降临了，然后他说这洗礼是给你们和你们的儿女的。我不知道这些改革宗的教会，这些浸信会的人，你怎么把儿女拿出去，然后再切碎了，把他们变成不同年龄。我们做不到的，弟兄姊妹，我们绝对做不到的。我们不知道三个月四个月五个月六个月，两岁三岁。我们做不到，而且一旦我们做了，定了一个年龄，我看好多这个教会是定12岁，8岁。这胆儿真肥啊，12岁，11岁夭折了，你负责啊？这个如此如此简单的常识，真的是太可怕了。然后整个使徒行传讲了八次洗礼，其中有一半以上是全家洗礼。然后其他的是随时随地洗礼，这是咱们一直在传讲的。我们有什么逻辑在全家洗礼当中把孩子们拿出去呢？我曾经讲过这个道理，我们中国人在这个意义上不是人，就是我们有计划生育。那么按照一个正常的家庭，他这一辈子我就说从18岁一直到58岁都在生孩子。所以这么多家庭全家洗礼，一定有孩子。68岁，更有能力的，78岁，好吧？

然后罗马书六章3到4节，讲的是什么？就受洗归入基督。谁受洗归入基督？所有的罪人受洗归入基督。为什么要受洗归入基督？因为向罪死。一方面你承认孩子是罪人，另外一方面说孩子不需要洗礼，这真是岂有此理。然后，我们看歌罗西书二章11到12节，这个大家把它拿出来查一查，我们要解决一个问题，什么问题呢？就是很多人反驳我们说，“你有没有圣经的根据，说旧约的割礼跟新约的洗礼是平行的呢？我把英文放在这里了。你们在他里面，也受了不是人所行的割礼，乃是基督使你们脱去肉体情欲的割礼。你们既受洗与他一同埋葬，也就在此与他一同复活。都因信那叫他从死里复活神的功用。我们看英文就会更加的清晰了，就是受洗与他一同埋藏是一个动词的分词，就是来形容割礼的。换句话说，这段经文清楚的告诉我们，旧约的割礼和基督里的洗礼是完全平行的，没有任何可怀疑的。你反对新约给孩子洗礼，你就必须得反对旧约给孩子们割礼。所有的逻辑和证据都是一样的。

改革宗教会，浸信会反对婴孩儿洗礼一个最有名的论据就是罗马书十章9到10节。你们也遇到这个问题吧？他说你们给孩子洗礼，孩子怎么可以口里承认，心里相信？当然孩子们心里相信，他们不敢说，谁也不知道相不相信。他们无非说，口里不能承认。但是这些读经的人也是瞎眼的，重读一遍，你就知道答案了。这里面讲什么呢？说你若口里认耶稣是主，心里相信他从死里复活，就必得救，因为人心里相信就可以称义，口里承认就可以得救。这里面在讲什么？这里在讲得救，不是在讲洗礼。你问我那洗礼和得救有什么关系？那我告诉你，洗礼是得救的开始，这里的得救就是一辈子最终得救，这完全是两个问题嘛。你怎么可以把两个问题放在一起，我们什么时候教导过说洗礼一定得救，你这是魔鬼的诬告嘛，我们从来都没有说过，我从来没有教导过，婴孩儿洗礼就一定得救。我们教导的是什么？不洗礼一定不得救，这个逻辑不清楚吗？清楚不清楚啊？这是一个最简单的形式逻辑，就是必要条件还是充分必要条件。圣经规定的洗礼是必要条件从来不是充分条件，是你把它想成了充分条件，你这个魔鬼的儿子，混乱主的正道还不止住吗？你不用说孩子们了，我们洗礼就一定得救吗？不一定，所以我们要建立圣礼型教会，要常常住在主的话语当中，主说，你们要常常住在我的话语里面，就真的是我的门徒了，你们必将晓得真理，真理最终必叫你们得以自由。还有一个平行的经文，罗马书13章11节，你们晓得现今就是趁早睡醒的时候，因为我们得救，现在比初信的时候更近了。你现在也不敢说你得救，什么一次得救，永远得救？谁敢说呀？所以我们一直需要基督，一直需要教会。结论，罗马书11章9到10节讲的不是洗礼，讲的是最终的得救。一直口里相信，一直心里承认，最后你才能得救。但是什么时候开始呢？从洗礼开始嘛，你总得有个开端嘛，没有开端就麻烦了。当然我们也了解这些人的那种纠结，就是担心那些没有受洗的人，婴孩儿怎么办？

现在我们再看提摩太后书三章15节，这个找到。大家读一下。这都是圣经当中关于洗礼，包括婴儿洗礼，特别重要的经文。并且知道你是从小明白圣经，这圣经能使你因信基督耶稣，有得救的智慧。 从小明白圣经，小到什么时候？只有神知道。提多书三章5节，他便救了我们；并不是因我们自己所行的义，乃是照他的怜悯，藉着重生的洗和圣灵的更新。好的，我们问那些反对婴孩儿洗礼的人一个基本逻辑，就是孩子们是不是罪人？是。罪人需不需要圣灵？需要。罪人怎么领受圣灵？不知道。我们知道，使徒行传二章说，凡受洗必领受所赐的圣灵，这应许是给你们和你们的儿女的。多简单的经文呀。彼得前书三章18到21节，我不去读了，大家比较熟悉，就是这洪水所代表的洗礼，借着耶稣基督的复活也拯救你们。启示录20章12节，我们看到刚才那位牧师讲的跟圣经是针锋相对，这里面讲的是什么？当主再来的时候，从老到少，所有的人类都要站在审判台前。找到吧，看我我说的对不对。启示录20章12节，我又看见死了的人，无论大小，都站在宝座前。案卷展开了，并且另有一卷展开，就是生命册。死了的人都凭着这些案卷所记载的，照他们所行的受审判。人人都有一死，死后必有审判。如果我们所有的夭折的婴孩都进天国了，这不需要审判，这其实这也是个常识。

好，我们做几点结论。反对婴孩洗礼的人主要有五大误区，我们简单的说一下，大家记住，希望这一次我们能够到一个更坚实的高台上，再往前走。第一，他们混淆了信心和理性的关系，就像刚才这位牧师，他也犯了同样的错误。他认为孩子们不能辨认对错，因此就一定没有信心。辨认对错的功能是理性。是否信上帝属于信心，这完全是两个问题。不解决这个问题，这场争论永远不会有结局，永远不会有结局。而且我们讲过，年龄越大，理性越强，信心越弱，等一下我们会看到那个年轻的财主，那个时候他的理性就是认为财产才是上帝，而前面的这些孩子们就认为上帝是上帝，这非常明显。第二个问题，就是为什么很多人反对洗礼？就是因为他们分不清洗礼是外在的形式和记号还是施恩之具。大家回去看这段经文，就是罗马书，歌罗西书，提多书，彼得前书，四节经文讲了一个共同的道理，就是洗礼是在拯救你们。你可以不接受，你可以不理解，但这是上帝的规定，洗礼绝对不仅仅是外在的形式，这个洗礼本身借着耶稣基督的复活现在就拯救你们。没什么可讨论的，所以为什么现在这个基督教如此的轻视外在这个形式，那是因为他们愚蠢，他们不愿意顺服。圣经这四节经文都讲一个事情，借着重生的洗，然后呢？这洗礼现在拯救你们。形式本身是没有意义的，上帝设立的形式有拯救的意义，你不服，你去找上帝，不要找我。为什么建诺亚方舟，建会幕有那么多的形式？这形式有什么意义？上帝说这形式拯救你们，你信不信吗？这道理是一贯的，上帝就偏偏的设立了这种你看起来很幼稚很庸俗的一种，什么弄点水，怎么就拯救你了？所以弟兄姊妹，这一点让我们更加谦卑。谦卑什么？在这个洗礼的问题上，我们和所有的孩子一样愚蠢无知，我们也不知道。我再简单问大家，领圣餐，那是主的身体，主的血，你懂吗？我再教50年，我也不懂，但我信嘛。那不就这么简单了吗？这个形式就拯救我们。这没有办法，这真的没有办法。

好，第三个问题，婴儿洗礼是得救的必要条件，还是充分必要条件？我在说，我们是必要条件，这是圣经规定的，没有洗礼，不经过水和圣灵，就不能得救。但是圣经从来没有说，经过水和圣灵就永远得救，没有嘛。如果有的话，启示录的七封书信何必呢？启示录可以拿去烧了。这些教会怎么说？你们曾经尝过天恩的滋味，你们起初曾有信心，很有爱心。那主耶稣何必还叨叨叨叨地说，你们要坚持到底，要坚持到底才能得救。必要条件，还是充分必要条件？洗礼是救恩的开端，还是救恩的结束？洗礼是入学考试还是毕业典礼？我们讲的太多了，你把这件事情搞清楚了，你就知道婴孩儿该洗礼了，因为他开学了。什么时候婴孩儿开学呢？我们能够把握的时间，从母腹出来就可以开学了。因为从母腹出来的时候，他就开始了他的学习，或者学魔鬼或者学基督。这有什么难的吗？没有什么难的。第四个问题，相关的，是开始得救还是一次永远得救？反对婴儿洗礼那些人就认为孩子们洗礼以后犯罪怎么办？唉呦，我们这些无耻的大人哪，照照镜子，你犯罪怎么办呢？你怎么会提出这么一个道理来呢？实在是没得说了，实在是没得骂了，真是岂有此理。孩子怎么样，你怎么样，你怎么样，孩子怎么样。而且不仅如此，我们的教会一再强调孩子洗礼之后为什么把父母叫到前面来？从今天开始，你有责任用圣经教导他们，你有责任带他们去教会，这不都给你安排好了嘛。这也是从旧约的以色列人到新约的教会一直是这样教导的。最后一个问题，主耶稣设立的洗礼是在复活之前还是在升天之前？升天之前他教导的，所以主那个时候是按手，而现在我们要婴孩洗礼。感谢赞美主把洗礼赐给我们和我们的儿女。