Good Morning Friends,
“Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive
perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the
house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But one of his disciples,
Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ‘Why wasn’t this perfume
sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.’ He did not
say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper
of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. ‘Leave her
alone,’ Jesus replied. ‘[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for
the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not
always have me.’” (John 12:1-8)
What extravagance! Mary took perfume worth a
year’s wages -- tens of thousands of dollars in our day -- and wasted it,
pouring it on Jesus’ feet. It upset Judas, at least in part because he was stealing
from the disciples’ money bag and thought the money should have been put into
it. I can see his point, can’t you? Why was such extravagance needed? Without a
thought of stealing any of the money, I’d still question the stewardship of it.
I have trouble doing anything with extravagance, no matter who it is for.
But, then, isn’t Jesus worth it? Isn’t He
worth extravagance?
Of course He is! He’s worth everything we
have. A year’s wages is a small price to pay to demonstrate love and commitment
to Jesus.
Mary didn’t hold anything back from Him. She
was willing to pour out her most valuable possession to Him.
It’s not just about money. It’s about commitment
and value. How much value do you place on Jesus and your relationship with Him?
In what ways are you willing to be extravagant to demonstrate your love for
Him?
His, by Grace,
Steve
THE FAVORITE PROOF-TEXT FOR INFANT BAPTISM BY STEVE FINNELL
ReplyDeleteThe most popular proof-text in support of infant baptism is Acts 16:33. The problem is you have ignore other verses, such as Acts 16:31, 32, and 34.
THE PROOF-TEXT: Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. (NKJV)
Does that prove that infants were baptized? No it does not.
The Jailer asked Paul and Silas what he needed to do to be saved. (Acts 16:30) The answer was: Acts 16:31 So they said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.(NKJV)
The Jailer could not believe for his household. Salvation is an individual choice.
Acts 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in the house.(NKJV)
Paul and Silas preached to all the household. Infants do understand the gospel. There were no infants hearing and believing the gospel.
Acts 16:34 Now when he had brought them into the house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.(NKJV)
The Jailer and all of his household believed before they were baptized. Infants are not capable of believing in God. Infants cannot understand the gospel message. Infants cannot believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact that the jailer and all of his household believed, eliminates the possibility of any infants being baptized that night.
Jesus said in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved..."(NKJV)
Paul and Silas did not the change the words of Jesus. Belief is required in order to be saved, as is baptism, and belief precedes immersion in water. There are no cases found in the Bible where an unbeliever is baptized. Infants are unbelievers.
If God approves of baptizing unbelieving infants; then why not baptize unbelieving adults???
You are invited to follow my blog.http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com