Psalm 1: The Way of the Righteous and the Wicked

Read Psalm 1 in your Bible.

A common psalmic theme is the juxtaposition between obedience to God and disobedience to God, obedience resulting in rewards and disobedience resulting in judgement.  "Blessed is the man" — being blessed is the state of one who places their trust in God and lives according to His commands.  First, let's define whom "the wicked" are.  Simply put, the wicked are unrepentant sinners, whether they are unbelievers or false Christians — wolves in sheep's clothing.  By fake Christians I mean those who call themselves Christians but their actions don't reflect true Christianity.  Greg Groeschel has dubbed these types of people as "Christian Atheists" — those who claim to be Christian but live as if He doesn't exist.  With these types of people, it is impossible to distinguish them from true atheists by their actions alone.  The wicked come in a myriad of shapes and sizes.

Moving on, to "walk in the counsel of the wicked" is to spend a significant amount of time with them.  Such high exposure puts one in danger of "standing in the way of sinners," which is to live in a sinful lifestyle while unrepentant.  Such examples of this would be sexually active homosexuals and homosexual marriage, the practise of premarital sex, committing adultery, being a compulsive liar, a thief, verbally and/or physically abusive, and the list goes on almost infinitely — doing any of these sins and others without repentance and without rebuking them (changing your ways).  Lastly, to "sit in the seat of scoffers" is to be in the comfortable disposition of contempt.  What does this mean?  It is the act of hatred — allowing hate to boil deep within your soul until it spills from your mouth.  Many Christians face such contempt from militant atheists.  Indeed, even some Christians are guilty of being scoffers, and perhaps from spending too much time among the wicked.

Rather than following these ways of the wicked, the Christian meditates on the ways of the Lord day and night.  Not meditate as in the Buddhist practise, but rather to think deeply upon.  I am at the point in my faith in that no matter what I'm doing, I'm almost constantly reflecting upon Scripture — determining my course of actions based upon God's approval or disapproval.  I'm not perfect at it; I fail many times, because I'm a sinner.  But when I do fail, I almost immediately change my course of action and/or repent.  Take heed in your worldly associations; do not linger too long among ungodly influences, lest you be seduced.

Remaining cognisant of all these things and thus steadfast brings prosperity.  Verse 3 does not mean solely financial prosperity, although God can choose to operate in that way.  God has chosen to bless and sustain me financially multiple times.  Not with wealth (after all, I'm a poor college student), but simply financial security.  But He has blessed me more with inner peace (which comes from Christ — John 14:27), the joy of the Lord, and many more eternally significant things, though they be intangible.  The wicked are blown away like chaff.  Chaff is debris from the husk of wheat separated from grain that the harvester would toss into the air to be blown away by the wind.  In stark contrast to this, the righteous remain rooted and fruitful, prospering in the ways of the Lord, never uprooted.  Judgement will blow the wicked away, but the righteous will endure forever.  Many sins may appear enticing, but they are infinitesimal compared to God's coming judgement that they'll be unable to withstand.  The wicked may appear to prosper, but i's always temporary.  If unrepentant, the wicked will be blown away in God's judgement, but the righteous will endure forever.

Psalm 1 Prayer
Father, keep me from walking in the counsel of the wicked.  Keep me from their perishable ways.  Help me to overcome my sin(s) of [list them here].  I can only overcome sin with Your strength.  Help me to overcome it [or them] and to annihilate any hatred in my heart.  Make the words on my tongue sweet, ridding the bitterness.  Father, I know I sometimes act like an enemy, but in my heart You know that I am an ally — I am Your child.  Guide me towards prosperity so that glory may be given to Your name, not just from my mouth, but any who witness Your prosperity.  Thank You for all You have done for me already [feel free to be specific].  In the name of Jesus I pray, amen.

Is Infant Baptism Necessary?

*Edited October 6, 2015.*

Introduction

The birth of a child is a wonderful gift from God.  Those who witness childbirth often describe it as a miracle.  Even Scripture confesses that children are a blessing, that they are “a gift of the LORD” and that “the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).  When we consider that an infant first starts out as a zygote — a single cell organism with its own unique genetic code — the birth of a human being truly is the miracle of life.  At the moment of birth, the mother immediately gains the instinctive desire to protect her offspring, as well as the father.  Both parents possess the unconditional and willing desire to protect their offspring at all costs — physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  The spirit of the child for many parents tends to be taken more seriously, or at least with more precautions.  For religious parents, the spirit of their child is the most important.  The issue for Christians is whether an infant should be baptised, and it is usually dependent on what denomination their church belongs to.  Lutherans and Catholics typically baptise their infants whereas a non-denominational or Baptist church refuses to practise the doctrine.  Before I approach this, we first need to identify what baptism is and why it is necessary for the Christian.  Afterwards, I will discuss why the baptising of infants is a necessary doctrine that must be practised in all churches of all denominations.

What Is Baptism?

It is shocking to find that there are still some Christians who don’t know what baptism is and what the effects of baptism are.  An old friend of mine asked me, “What’s the meaning of baptism,” which led me to this study.  Baptism is something that all Christians practise, yet there remain disputes about what it is, what it does, why it’s necessary, and who should or should not be baptised.  The best thing to do is to go straight to the Scriptures and draw our conclusions from the Word of God without putting any human logic above the authority of the Scriptures.

First of all, we are commanded to baptise in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).  Jesus did not give a polite suggestion; it was an obligatory command.  We’ll be coming back to this later.  The first time we come across baptism is with John the Baptiser.  The type of baptism that John preaches was “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).  So, in short, that is one thing baptism does:  it cleanses us from all our sins — past, present, and future.  Likewise, St. Paul affirmed this when he said, “Get up and be baptised, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16).  Baptism is also the receiving of the Holy Spirit.  The Apostle Peter, at Pentecost, said, “Repent, and each of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).  John the Baptiser’s baptism pointed to Christ and when He arrived, the baptism of John was moved aside (John 1:29-34).  This is exactly why John said by the Jordan River, “After me comes He who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.  I have baptised you with water, but He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:7-8).  After this, Jesus was baptised, which was vital because Jesus “fulfilled all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).  So, baptism does two things so far:  it cleanses us from all our sins, and we receive the Holy Spirit through it.  A common question  people ask is if baptism is an “insurance policy” for salvation.  Scripture does not say that we are saved by baptism.  It says that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8).  Our salvation is assured when the promises in baptism are claimed and confirmed.

The last thing baptism does is work sanctification in us.  You may have heard that word “sanctification,” but you might not know what it means.  Paul writes, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification…  For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.  Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives His Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thessalonians 4:3a, 7-8).  In the Greek, “sanctification” is the word ἁγιασμός (ha-gee-as-MOS), which can also be translated as “holiness.”  Through baptism, the receiving of the Holy Spirit justifies our sins and begins to work sanctification in us — He starts the process of making us holy.  Notice that the word before God’s Spirit is the adjective Holy, hence His work is making us holy through sanctification — or cleansing, hence the imagery of washing or regeneration often used in Scripture in regards to baptism.  As soon as God marks us in the faith in baptism, adopting us as His children (Ephesians 1:5) because of Christ (justification), the process of becoming what God desires us to be begins (holiness, sanctification).

As a Christian, you might be well aware that there are other means of forgiveness and that we receive the Holy Spirit when we first believe in Jesus, which, if you’re an adult, obviously comes before baptism.  Adults who haven’t been baptised yet receive faith first (they repent and then turn back to God), and then they are baptised, which marks their conversion and cleanses them of all sin.  (We’ll get to infants soon, I promise.)  In a conversation with a friend, she asked me, “Why should I be baptised when it is not the only means of forgiveness?”  Going back to what I said earlier, we baptise because Jesus commanded us to.  I reiterate:  it was not a polite suggestion; it was an obligatory command.  Therefore, baptism is a sacrament.  A sacrament is “a sacred act that was instituted by God, has a physical element combined with the Word of God, and conveys the forgiveness of sin.  Another definition calls them rites commanded by God with His promise of grace” (Mueller, 528).  Jesus, who is God, instituted baptism by commissioning the apostles and all Christians to baptise all nations (“Go… baptising them”), it is combined with the Word of God (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), and it is combined with physical elements (the water and laying of the hands of the pastor), and it conveys the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4).  Since it is God’s work toward us, it is connected with the promise of grace.  The other sacraments are the Lord’s Supper and Absolution.  We practise all these sacraments because God commanded us to and they each have the above three qualities as well as being connected with the promise of God’s grace.

All that being said, what makes baptism effective is God’s Word.  The Word of God must be applied to the water in order for baptism to have its effect.  Although God works through human hands, it is not human hands that make it effective, and neither is it the water; it is the Word of God (a.k.a. the words of institution).  The pastor could be an unholy hypocrite while baptising someone, but the person being baptised still receives its blessings because the power is through the Word of God, not the hands of the pastor.  The heresy of Donatism asserts that the effectiveness of baptism is dependent on the holiness of the minister and the one receiving it based on their level of faith.  Nowhere in Scripture is this said or implied.  The benefits of baptism are valid in the baptism and received by faith because it is by faith that we receive the gifts and promises of God.  As we see in the Great Commission, Jesus commanded that we baptise “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” affirming not only the validity of the Holy Trinity, but also what, or rather who, makes the baptism effective.  Baptism is God’s work, not our own.  It is not something we do for God; it is something God does to us.

Baptism and Original Sin

As a former non-denominational Christian, I came across many parents and Christians who aren’t parents who want to wait until their child is old enough to understand baptism and make the decision on their own because they believe that faith is a prerequisite for baptism.  When this happens, they are confused with who does the action.  Instead of understanding that it is something God does to us, they think it’s something we do for God.  In a discussion with Reverend Charles Schulz, he said, “Baptism is a passive verb; it’s not something you do, but something that’s done to you.”  These people fail to understand that we have no ability to choose anything to give to God, because while we still live in sin we continue to fail to do just that.  Nothing we give to God will ever be enough; that’s why it was necessary for Jesus to save us.  If we could give things to God and do things for Him, then we would still be under the Law and Jesus’ death would’ve been for nothing.  But we are not under Law; we are under grace (Romans 6:14).  Not only that, but Jesus Himself said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5).  He also said, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you…” (John 15:16).  Even as we are saved and baptised, the bondage of our will is to sin in the flesh, through the influences of the world, and the Devil.  This is what Paul meant when he said, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.  For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Romans 7:18-20).  This is known as the doctrine of the bondage of the will.  Our concupiscence is to sin, but as believers, it is no longer we who do it, but, as Paul says, the sin that is still in us.  Therefore, it is impossible to choose God because we fail to do so when we sin every single day.  It’s the whole simul iustus et peccator concept (simultaneously saint and sinner).

At the core of Christian doctrine is the doctrine of original sin — that all human beings are born into sin.  Being born into sin calls for the necessity of forgiveness, and since infants are unable to repent of their own volition, they receive forgiveness through baptism.  Simultaneously claiming that we are born into original sin and that infants are innocent is a contradicting statement.  It is impossible to both be born into sin and yet be innocent; that doesn’t make any logical sense no matter how you look at it.  Original sin judges every single one of us as guilty, not innocent, and so we are, even at birth.  Sin and the judgement it brings has no compassion.  It doesn’t care whether you’re a cute little infant or not; it still convicts you to eternal death in Hell.  Original sin is the sin passed on through the seed of Adam and Eve — that at birth, all have the natural inclination to sin, which is to rebel against God.  Because our natural inclination is to rebel against God (sin) as it has been passed down through the seed of Adam, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  If infants were not born into original sin and thus innocent, then they wouldn’t suffer the effects of sin:  disobedience, illness, and death.  And infants are guilty of all these things.

However, there is Good News.  Jesus Christ “paid the ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28) by offering Himself as the sacrifice for all sins “once for all” (Romans 6:10).  Through baptism, we are reborn.  As St. Paul writes, “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).  We die to our sins in baptism, and as we emerge from the waters we are reborn into a new life.  To Nicodemus, Jesus said, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ ” (John 3:7).  What’s interesting is that in the original Greek, He says, “γεννηθῆναι ἂνωθεν” (gen-ay-THAY-nie, AH-no-then), which literally translated means, “to be born from above.”  The Greek word for “again” is a completely different word, which is πάλιν (PAH-lin).  So in these true words of Jesus, He paints a beautiful image that to be born again through baptism is not to be born of this world, but from above — that is, from Heaven.  This is validated when He says prior to this verse in verse six, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”  When we’re born into this world, we are born in the sinful flesh.  Through baptism, we are reborn from the Spirit that comes from above.

Infant Baptism

In my conversations with people, many Christians of various denominations believe that it is more right to wait until the child understands what baptism is and then have them decide.  I debunked this issue of “choosing” earlier.  Just as we did not choose to be born on this earth, so we do not choose our rebirth in baptism.  Mueller makes a brilliant point:

It is noteworthy that such questions are raised in spiritual issues but would never be entertained in other areas of life.  A responsible parent would not keep their children out of school until they were old enough to decide whether they wanted to be educated, nor would most allow a minor child to drop out if he did not want to go.  They would not withhold medical care from a child until she was old enough to understand the treatment (qtd. 336-337).

           

Some would say that this is a farfetched comparison, but it’s really not.  It’s the same exact logic used in a similar situation.  To say it’s not the same is a logical fallacy known as equivocation, which occurs when the definition of a word changes in the middle of a proposition or syllogism (which is exactly what occurs when people say it’s not the same when utilising their line of logic).  As children grow up, they despise school, but parents still make them go because they know that it’s better to have an education than it is to not have one.  Children hate going to the doctor’s, but parents still make them go because they also know it’s better for them to be healthy and in good physical condition, and also because it would be child neglect not to do so.  Therefore, it is irresponsible and also child neglect for a Christian parent to neglect their child’s baptism.  By doing so, they are neglecting the child from receiving forgiveness of all sins (original sin) and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.  Scripture says that “there is no distinction:  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22b-23).  I think it is vital to note that the word for “fall” in this text is in the present tense and not passive aorist (past tense passive).  In many sermons and conversations with people, I’ve heard them quote it as such, “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”  That’s not what it says.  It’s not something that used to happen up to a certain point.  The present tense used here in the Greek indicates that it is a continual process.  All have sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God; there is no distinction.  Every single human being is a sinner, and it is baptism that cleanses us from all sin.

The biggest argument against infant baptism is the claim that infants don’t have the mental capacity to exercise faith.  Of course, an infant cannot deduce that Jesus is Lord and Saviour like an adult can.  This is why at infant baptisms, the parent(s), sponsor(s), and church speak on behalf of the infant regarding their faith.  Also, in the Great Commission, Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20a).  Baptism and teaching go together!  You don’t baptise your infant and say, “Well, that’s it.  I’m good.  They’re saved and I don’t need to do anything.”  Wrong!  Teaching must continue with the baptism!

God chooses us first and waits for our faithful response.  The Israelites in the Old Testament circumcised their 8-day-old infants as a sign of God choosing the male offspring of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 17:10-12).  An 8-day-old infant is incapable of choosing to believe in God and accept Him as his Lord and Saviour.  Instead, God chooses the infants (and adults who haven’t been baptised yet) to be included as a part of His family in baptism just as He did in the Old Testament with circumcision as a sign of the promise.

 In Luke 18, Jesus was going to touch the children and bless them, but the disciples, knowing that children and infants are unable to make independent decisions, rebuked the people who were bringing the children forward (exactly what people against infant baptism do today).  But Jesus rebukes the disciples, saying, “Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.  Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:16-17).  In the original language of the New Testament, Greek, there are certain words that are used to denote specific age groups.  The Greek word that Jesus uses here for “children” is βρέφος (BREH-fos), which a more accurate translation would be “foetus, baby, or infant” (Danker, 74).  If the word were truly “child,” then the Greek word would’ve been τέκνον (TEK-nun), but it is not used here.  So, people were bringing forth their infants so Jesus might cleanse them from sin, and when the disciples rebuked them since infants are incapable of making independent decision, Jesus actually rebuked the disciples and demanded that they be brought to Him so He could lay His hands on them.  People retort to this by saying, “Well, Jesus didn’t baptise infants.”  Jesus didn’t baptise adults either!  Nowhere in Scripture does it specifically account Jesus baptising anybody.  He laid His hands on people for forgiveness of sins, including infants, but He didn’t baptise anybody as far as we know.  Additionally, we have a record of whom the apostles baptised in the book of Acts, including entire households (16:11-15).  If faith were an absolutely necessary prerequisite to baptism and so important as people claim it to be, then it would’ve been mentioned here, if not elsewhere, but it wasn’t.  They baptised entire households, which typically consisted of parents, children, and infants.

Jesus continued in saying that “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”  It’s interesting that Jesus does not say that children ought to become like adults, which goes against Western thought.  Rather, He says that adults ought to become like children.  Wouldn’t you agree that it’s because of children’s lack of independence and thus total dependence on their parents that baptism is all the more necessary?  If not, then perhaps these words from Jesus should convince you just prior to what He said, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin” (Luke 17:2).  A millstone was one of two large, circular stones used for grinding grain.  Here’s an image of what it would look like according to what Jesus said:

Imagine being cast into the sea with that thing around your neck.  Jesus considers causing a child to fall away from Him a serious offence, and we do exactly this when we refuse the baptising of an infant.  He says it’s better for one to forcefully drown than to cause a child to fall!  Obviously, Jesus took this quite seriously.

Likewise, Mueller comments, “Infants may not be able to articulate their faith just as they are unable to verbalize their love for their mother, but this does not mean that faith or love are absent from them.  With God’s power, it will grow in time, but even infants can believe” (338).  Since infants apparently don’t have the mental capacity for faith, then they must not have the mental capacity for love either.  Once again, to say that this is not the same thing is the logical fallacy of equivocation.  However, we see evidence of an infant’s love for his mother when he desires to be with her.  Likewise, the evidence of faith in an infant is God’s Word in the baptism, since faith is a gift from God and not something we create.  Consider how you “prove” your faith.  Do you happen to be faithful and righteous all the time?  Obviously not.  So how can someone know for sure that you have faith?  Faith comes from God, therefore it is sustained by Him.  Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”  Non-Christians are capable of doing good works just like the ones that Christians do (e.g. giving to the poor, donating to charities, etc.), but we cannot come to the conclusion that by their actions they have faith since their belief in no God is the obvious rejection of the gift of faith.  We cannot determine whether one has faith through physical perceptions.  Indeed, there are even wolves in sheep’s clothing who appear to have faith, but in truth do not, and it is because of our inability to physically perceive faith that they deceive us.  Since we cannot physically perceive faith in rational adults, then we definitely cannot perceive it in infants either.  If faith, and therefore baptism, were dependent on an individual’s capability of higher thinking, then one could erroneously argue that people with Down’s Syndrome and other serious mental disorders and incapacities are incapable of having faith and thus being baptised.  Of course, no one truly makes this argument, but the argument can nevertheless be made using the same line of logic against infant baptism.  Because: since an infant can’t understand baptism, how can we trust that someone with Down’s Syndrome or some other mental disability can?  Do you see my point and the absurdity of this thinking?  Since faith is not dependent on us somehow creating it and is therefore a gift from God, then God, who is the Creator of the universe, is fully capable of giving a child the gift of faith.  Faith and understanding do not go together.  Do you understand how God was able to create the entire universe out of nothing, how He is one being yet three persons, and how He was able to humble Himself as man and save us from all our sins?  Of course you don’t.  Yet by faith, He enables you to believe that He is truly capable of all these things, and more than we can ever imagine.  Where there is faith, understanding is irrelevant.

What Now?

So what, then?  What do we do now that we are baptised?  In regards to children, Mueller explains:

A child who is baptized should be raised in faith, instructed in God’s truth, and nurtured in the Christian faith throughout their lives.  Parents promise to raise their children in the faith when they are baptized.  When they faithfully fulfill this promise, they again demonstrate the truth that, in Christ’s institution, baptism and teaching belong together” rather than being separate (338).

The vocation of a parent is to “bring [their children] up in the instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4), which, as I explained earlier, goes together with the baptism as delineated in the Great Commission.  Likewise, Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.

More specifically, how does baptism apply to our daily lives as adults?  Martin Luther stressed the vitality of “daily baptism.”  In his Large Catechism, he wrote that baptism “must be done without ceasing, that we always keep urging away whatever is of the old Adam.  Then what belongs to the new man may come forth” (LC, Part 4, 65).  This is the confession of sin on a daily basis, which is also what our baptism begins with.

Baptism is not an excuse to live a life of sin.  In my conversations with Christians and atheists alike, some have told me, “Since all my sins would be forgiven and justified, why can’t I just do whatever I want and repent later?”  St. Paul addressed this in Romans 6:1-4:

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

Baptism is the death of our original sin and as we rise from the waters, we emerge into a new life in Christ.  Therefore, such a lifestyle of living in sin when baptised is unnatural and a denial of what God has done in your baptism (in fact, Paul mentions this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).  This is why it is vital that we daily repent the contrition of our sins — the daily killing of the old Adam.  As Luther comments:

But what is the old man?  It is what is born in human beings from Adam:  anger, hate, envy, unchastity, stinginess, laziness, arrogance — yes, unbelief.  The old man is infected with all vices and has by nature nothing good in him [Romans 7:18].  Now, when we have come into Christ’s kingdom [John 3:5], these things must daily decrease.  The longer we live the more we become gentle, patient, meek, and ever turn away from unbelief, greed, hatred, envy, and arrogance (LC, Part 4, 66-67).

Conclusion

We have seen that all human beings are born into original sin.  Because of this, there is no distinction, and the only way to be redeemed from our sins is through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer.  It is essential that this is done as early as possible.  Because of the sinful condition of the world, it is full of many harrowing, and unexpected, surprises.  Original sin causes tragedies upon infants such as stillbirths and sudden infant death syndrome, and abrupt illnesses and diseases and genetic defects in the womb, which such tragic cases are evidence that infants are affected by original sin and therefore born into it, and therefore guilty of sin, calling for the necessity of redemption through Jesus Christ in baptism.

We can never predict what life may bring because the life we live on this earth is tainted by sin.  There is uncertainty in this life; but there is certainty in the life to come.  Because of this, the answer to the question, “Is infant baptism necessary” is:  Absolutely.  It is absolutely necessary to baptise infants that they may receive the forgiveness of original sin and receive the Holy Spirit.  And along with it must come the simultaneous teaching and discipline of the Lord through the parents as they grow up, for Jesus has told us that baptism and teaching go together in the Great Commission.  Since Jesus gave no distinction of age, but all nations — all people, that includes infants; and also because the apostles themselves baptised entire households.  It is intellectually dishonest to assume that baptism only applies to minds that are capable of rational thought.  If one refuses the baptising of an infant, it is better for them to put a millstone around their neck and be cast into the ocean, sinking to the very bottom, for that is a far better fate than the damnation of an infant to suffer the eternal consequences of sin in Hell.

References

Beckett, Garrick. Interview with Reverend Charles Schulz. Personal

            Interview. Ann Arbor, October 22, 2014.

Danker, Frederick W., and Kathryn Krug. The Concise Greek-English

            Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2009. Print.

McCain, Paul Timothy, W.H.T. Dau, and F. Bente. Concordia: The Lutheran

            Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. St. Louis,

            MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2009. Print.

Mueller, Steven P., Korey Mass, Timothy Maschke, Brian M. Mosemann,

            and Gregory Seltz. Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An

            Introduction to Doctrinal Theology. Eugene, Or: Wipf & Stock, 2005.

            Print.

Homosexuality: Revealing the Sin and A Call to Repentance

*Edited October 20, 2015.*

Every human being is bound to a moral standard.  That moral standard may originate from his or her rationality, a political belief, or a religious belief.  Whichever standard our morals operate by, we are bound to abide by that standard only.  Whichever standard we claim, it would be intellectually honest of us to operate by that standard alone without deviating from it, otherwise it becomes confusing to identify which moral standard you operate by.  If we create our own moral standard, morality is free to be bent and broken to our subjective rules, which is, of course, dangerous.  If your morals are influenced by politics, your beliefs will be one way as a Democrat and another way as a Republican, or whatever other political party you affiliate yourself with.  If your morals are influenced by the religion your keep, your morals are bound to the authority of the god you worship.  As Christians, we strictly believe that the Word of God is the main authority over all authorities — that God and His Word have authority over all governments, all political agendas, and all human rationality — over all men no matter one’s social status.  It is the same for all Christians.  If one claims to be Christian, they are claiming God’s Word as the ultimate authority and when they indefatigably and unrepentantly deviate from His Word, they declare otherwise.  Therefore, as God’s Word unmistakably declares homosexuality as a sin, the responsible Christian will not contradict this declaration and therefore must not condone the sin as they would any other sin.

The Abominable Sin

I will be covering three fallacies (and three sub-fallacies) that people utilise to condone homosexuality, but before I get to them we need to go to the Scriptures that reveal the sinfulness of homosexuality.  We first see God unequivocally forbidding homosexual activity in the Law in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”  Before He said this, God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality and other sexual deviances (Genesis 18:20-21; 19:4-5, 24-25).  (Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin, and not the only sexual sin that Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for.  Nevertheless, homosexuality is still a sin, God singling it out as “an abomination.”)  The condemnation of homosexuality is not only found in the Old Testament; it is in the New Testament as well.  In his second epistle, St. Peter uses the example of Sodom and Gomorrah as a warning for people of all ages:

…and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what He saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:6-10; italics added.)

There is both Law and Gospel in this passage.  The Law here is that homosexuality is an abominable sin as God has declared, using Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate what will happen to those who are unrepentant of the same and other sins.  The Gospel here is that since God rescued the one man, Lot, from a sinful city because of his righteousness, then certainly God knows how to rescue us from our sin and the surrounding sins of those around us.  “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).  Any temptation you experience is nothing new; God will provide a way for you to endure it and overcome it.  However, if you constantly reject His help, you will remain “unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement.”

Likewise, in Jude 6-7 we read, “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

In Romans 1:18-32, we read of God’s wrath against all the godlessness and wickedness of man, homosexuality falling under that category.  Specifically in verses 26-27, St. Paul describes homosexuality as a wicked perversion of God’s will:  “For this reason god gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

“Jesus Didn’t Talk About Homosexuality”

Before I start with the first logical fallacy, I must first debunk a common argument people make and then briefly discuss the origin of marriage.  They say, “Well, Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, so it’s not a sin.”  (These people ignore the rest of the New Testament that defines it as a sin, denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the New Testament writers, thus making it the Word of God.)  Let’s take a look at 1 Timothy 1:8-11, “Now we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murders, the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”  The Law now speaks to the type of sinners mentioned here, which is really every single sinner (all of us).  This is why God’s Word offends unrepentant sinners like homosexuals because His law still condemns them, and it is “in accordance with the gospel” of God.  So, “Jesus never talked about homosexuality” is an invalid argument.  Jesus never talked about rape either, yet we know rape is a sin and immoral.  That, and rape, like homosexuality, is categorised as a sexual sin.  “Gospel” and “Good News” are the same word in Greek (εὐαγγέλιον), and Jesus is the Gospel/Good News (Mark 1:1).  Therefore, this part of the Law is in accordance with Jesus Christ the Gospel because the glory of God has revealed it as so.  Or, to put it more simply, since Jesus is God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14; 8:24; 10:30), He did in fact talk about it.

The Origin of Marriage

Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ ”  God did not want man to be alone.  This is the first time God said something was “not good.”  He created “a helper fit for” Adam.  While it is vital to see the implications of marriage inherent in this passage, we should also see that God did not want man to live in isolation.  God solved Adam’s loneliness by creating a wife for him, but keep in mind that Eve was not just a wife — she was another human being, specifically a woman, someone completely different than Adam yet complementary.  In other words, God designed human beings to live in relationship with one another; and in this case with marriage, only with the opposite sex.  The helper fit for Adam was a woman; therefore a man would be unfit for Adam; and vice versa for women.  All Adam was familiar with was the male sex, but God didn’t give him a choice.  He specifically created someone different yet complementary — a woman.

The Love Fallacy

There are three commonly used logical fallacies to condone homosexuality.  The first fallacy is what I call the Love Fallacy.  I believe this is the most often used argument for homosexuality, especially with the hashtag “love wins” when gay “marriage” was legalised (which is ironic because they don’t extend that love towards people who disagree with the gay lifestyle, so really hate won that day).  The argument is that because homosexuals “love” each other, that gives them the right to fulfil their sexual desires.  This argument commits three sub-fallacies within itself:  equivocation, special pleading, and argumentum ad populum (literally “an argument to the people”).  Equivocation occurs when the definition of a word changes in the middle of a proposition or syllogism.  I could use this argument to justify why I want to marry and/or have sex with my grandmother, or niece, or even my dog since I love them all.  However, someone using this argument will quickly say that it’s not the same thing when it in fact is when you follow this line of logic.  Christians have forewarned that if gay marriage is legalised, then pedophiles will also use this love fallacy to legally marry and have sex with children, and indeed they have (see this article http://www.inquisitr.com/2209930/allen-west-pedophiles-supported-by-scotus-gay-marriage-decision/).  The argument used with the love fallacy is that love justifies all things.  If you love that person or thing, then you have the right to have sex with them and even marry them.  However, if I use that same logic towards something other than a homosexual drive, the definition will suddenly change to mean something else.  You can’t assign a definition to love that supports your perspective and then suddenly change that definition into something else when it’s used for a different perspective that you disagree with.  Therefore, the love argument is invalid.

Special pleading is when a law or rule applies to every circumstance except a specific circumstance because of a unique property it has.  With this, people have the knowledge that God defines homosexuality as a sin, along with other sexual sins, but they will make the exception with homosexuality and accept the sin whether it’s because they know someone who’s a homosexual or because they believe it’s not as bad as adultery, premarital sex, incest, rape, bestiality, or pedophilia.  It is logically fallacious to be aware of a category of sins/wrongs (sexual sin in this case) yet deny the sinfulness of one of those sins just because you can’t manage to agree with that part of God’s decree.  We don’t get to pick and choose what is and what isn’t a sin.  Only God can define sin, and He has in Scripture.  An example of special pleading is a mother who says, “Yes, your honour, I do know that all convicted drunk drivers go to jail, but he’s my son!  He’s a good boy who’s just made a mistake!”  Sure, he made a mistake, but the law doesn’t care; the law shows no partiality, has no compassion, and it certainly doesn’t care about your circumstances.  Likewise, special pleading with homosexuality is, “Yes, God, I know that all the sexual sins You listed are sinful, but homosexuals love each other so it’s okay!”  No, it’s not okay.  The Law of God dictates that homosexuality is sin and that if you commit any sin, you are condemned, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  But there is forgiveness, there is redemption, and there is freedom to overcome our sin in Jesus Christ who died for our sins.

Before we get into the next major fallacy, argumentum ad populum is an argument that claims to be inherently true because the majority of the population confirms it to be true or false.  The majority of Nazi Germany practised argumentum ad populum to justify their belief that it was right to kill all Jews and anyone else who didn’t conform to their standards, but did that make it morally right?  Of course not, because God defined murder as sin.  Murder didn’t suddenly because morally justifiable because there was a majority consensus that accepted it.  It’s the same thing with homosexuality.  Popular consensus does not define sin or make something legitimate when both natural law and God’s Law say otherwise.  Humans don’t get to redefine sin.  God defines it, and Scripture is where we have a record of His definition.  As I established earlier, the Bible states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality and all other kinds of actions are sinful.  It specifically says that homosexuality (and other perverse sexual acts) is an abomination to God.  You can believe what you choose to believe, but it does not change what the Word of God declares.

The Born-This-Way Fallacy

In my discussions with people, many of them believe that homosexuality is something that one is born with and several of them have asked me, “When did you choose to be straight,” as if that would stump me.  My answer is this:  I didn’t choose; God made me straight.  All people are born within the male and female order of creation.  Even natural law (science) agrees with this.  If I choose any other sexual deviancy (e.g. LGBT, adultery, fornication, etc.), I am choosing a perversion of God’s good design.  No one is born having decided that they’re going to be an adulterer, or a rapist, or a sexual sadist, or any other perversity; it’s a decision they make later on in life due to whatever environmental condition led them to make that decision.  Homosexuals are no different and no more special than other sexual deviants who choose to act outside the sexual order of God’s creation (which was a monogamous marriage free of sex prior to marriage, free of adultery, etc.).  When we choose to sexually act out of God’s created order, we are willingly choosing to act on sexual desires outside of God’s will, which He has defined as sinful, rather than embracing what God has commanded.  All of these choices are made by turning away from God’s intention of what is acceptable, not away from some mythical neutrality based on an evolutionary view of man.  Even evolution speaks against homosexuality.  Here’s an excerpt from World Net Daily:

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction, so let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe 10 generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a homosexual gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool. Ask any genetics teacher, “Could homosexuality be genetic if there is no mechanism for gays to pass their genes on to children as frequently as straights pass genes on to their children?” While you are at it, propose any percentage of gays in the starting population and any fertility rates for gays and straights, and ask for the mathematical calculations of how rapidly a homosexual gene would die out. (Irvin, 2012.)

Without the foundation of a moral absolute, there is no basis upon which anyone can call any kind of sexual behaviour wrong; they can only call it different and pass no moral judgements.  Christians look to God for the absolute standard and trust His revealed Word to make our judgements.  Arguing that people are born gay and that it is not a choice is arguing against what god has revealed as His will in His Word.  Even if people are born with the propensity to seek sexual affection from the same sex, that does not make it right or “normal.”  From this line of logic, the people making this argument would have to excuse other moral wrongs and sins because people are born with the propensity to be an adulterer, a compulsive liar, a murderer, a rapist, a thief, and so on.  Any moral perversion, from the propensity to be a compulsive liar to the propensity to be a psychopathic serial killer, would be justified under the same “born-this-way” argument.  Of course, people who make this argument will disagree, once again committing the equivocation fallacy.

The Happiness Fallacy

This argument supposes that homosexuality is right because “everyone has the right to be happy.”  By this remark, they perhaps think of the right to the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. Constitution.  But that statement by our founding fathers gives us the  right to do exactly what it says — to pursue happiness; it doesn’t promise that the government will give it to you.  Also, following this line of logic that everyone deserves to be happy is essentially saying that if something makes you happy, whether it’s moral or not, you should be allowed to do it.  That’s basically what anarchy is — doing whatever makes you happy, whatever pleases you, and it only leads to chaos and moral depravity.  Murderers are perfectly happy murdering innocent people.  Sexual sadists are perfectly happy raping women and molesting children.  Many men are perfectly happy having sex with as many women as they want and the same goes for women with men.  So by this logic, we could justify their actions since it makes them happy.  And again, those who support homosexuality  will disagree and then we’re  back to the equivocation fallacy again.

I have heard the argument and even sermons from “pastors” (like the heretic Joel Osteen) that God wants everyone to be happy.  A bigger lie could not have been told.  Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the goal of faith is ultimate happiness.  A life with  God in the centre can  bring joy, but even then, tribulation is inevitable, for we “share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:5).  Not only that, but Jesus said, “In this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33).  If God was only concerned with our happiness, then He would tell us everything we want to hear and give us everything we want.  Rather, He tells us what we need to hear through the Law (which is not what we want to hear) and Gospel (which many reject in spite of its Good News).  And by His grace and mercy, he chastises and blesses us.  Our happiness is irrelevant.  We live this life and the life to come for god, not for ourselves.  Happiness is ever waning in a sinful world, but the joy of the Lord is eternal.  Life has nothing to do with us; it is all about God and His glory.

A Call to Repentance

Keep in mind that homosexuality is not the only sexual sin, and neither is it the worst sin.  (If you haven’t gotten that by now with the many times I put in parentheses, “and other sexual sins,” then you need to pay more attention.)  God likewise condemns adultery (Matthew 15:19; Hebrews 13:4).  God condemns bestiality (Leviticus 18:23).  God condemns incest (Leviticus 18:6-7; 1 Corinthians 5:1).  God highly condemns rape to the point that the rapist must be punished by death and the victim is innocent (Deuteronomy 22:25-28).  Lastly, God condemns fornication — that is, premarital sex and promiscuity (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18).  People who are unrepentant of all these sexual immoralities, including homosexuality, along with other non-sexual sins, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).  If you’re for homosexuality or you are a homosexual, you may have heard the prior First Corinthians passage thrown at you numerous times.  Or if you’re not gay and you’re against it, you may have been the one throwing the passage at people (which I exhort you to stop doing).  In either instance, verse eleven is always left out, which says, “And such were some of you.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  People in the Corinthian church were guilty of all these sins that Paul listed, and he reminded them of their baptism, so this is more so for believers.  But if you’re not a believer, then  it’s not too late to believe and be baptised and forsake your sins.  As Christians, because we are justified in Christ by our baptism, all of these things are unnatural ways of life.  We have been forgiven for all these sins, therefore we must not continue to live in them.  Whichever sin enslaves you, turn from your wicked ways and let Christ enable you to overcome it!  God forgives and cleanses all our sins.

Therefore, do not fret; there is no reason to fear.  Through baptism, daily repentance, and the forsaking of our sins as God enables us, we are able to be free from  any sin that enslaves us.  After confession, forsaking the sin must follow.  If you repent of a sin and yet still commit the sin, then you’re still guilty of it.  “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Proverbs 28:13).  Confessing the sin grants you forgiveness, but physically forsaking the sin frees you from its physical bondage, which can only be done through the strength of Christ, hence, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens  me” (Philippians 4:13).  How can you be free from the clutches of the sin that once bound you when you still practise it?  I’m not saying  that you’re saved by your own works.  God forgives us before we even ask.  A criminal who serves his or her sentence and yet still commits the same crime after being exonerated upon completion of their sentence is still guilty of that crime.  Or say you’re  reformed drug addict.  If you start indulging in the drug again, are you still purified from that substance?  Of course you’re not.  It is the same thing with sin.  Repent of the sin with a contrite heart, resulting in God’s immediate forgiveness, yet if you continue to commit the sin, then you are still guilty of that sin.  God will still forgive you, but you’re still guilty of that sin if you just turn right back to it after repenting.  Because if you confess, and then immediately revert to your self-medicating sin, you obviously didn’t really mean it.

Forgiveness, even with the effects of baptism, does not grant you permission to freely commit and/or dwell in a particular sin you enjoy.  Forgiveness is the recognition of the poison of your sins as God willingly cleanses you from its poison.  As St. Paul wrote in Romans 6:1-4:

What shall we say then?  Are we to continue in sin that grace [that is, God’s forgiveness] may abound [be abundant]?  By no means!  How can we who died to sin still live in it?  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death?  We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  [Brackets added.]

Baptism is the death of our original sin and as we rise from the waters, we emerge into a new life in Christ — hence being born again.  Therefore, as St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:11, such a lifestyle of living in sin when baptised is unnatural and a denial of what God has done in your baptism (not just the homosexual lifestyle, but any sinful lifestyle gone unrepentant).  Forgiveness cleanses you from that sin; forsaking the sin is what enables you to live free of its misery and condemnation as a result of sin.  “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).  Likewise, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).

Suffering in sin is an inevitable part of life that we all must endure in a sinful world.  The good news is that God enables us to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).  Whether we allow it to overwhelm and therefore rule our lives or let God take control is ultimately up to us.  And it may require some necessary and arduous sacrifices.  The sacrifice for non-reformative homosexuality is celibacy for one’s entire life (as it is for the pedophile).  In this way, we can see how faith truly is a gift as one is enabled through the grace of Christ to conquer the sin and its dominion over him or her rather than living completely bound to its chains.  Consider how minuscule this sacrifice is to make for Christ when he gave His life for every single one of us and every sin that underprops our suffering.  No sacrifice is greater than that.  Sure, sex may feel wonderful, but do you absolutely need it?  One may say yes, but unless you’re planning on procreating, you don’t need sex to live; you can literally live without it and live a meaningful, fulfilling life.  I personally know some Christian men who suffer with same-sex attraction, but they’ve repented of this sin that they cannot control (like some of us cannot control gossip, greed, gluttony, etc.), and as a response to God’s merciful forgiveness,  they don’t practise homosexual acts.  Sure, they still suffer with homosexual thoughts because that’s how this current life is in a sinful world, but by the strength of Christ they don’t act on them.

God is faithful and just and He forgave their sins, cleansing them from all unrighteousness  because He always remains faithful even when  they, and all of us, are faithless.

References

Irvin, P. (2012, October 21). Proof You Can’t be ‘Born Gay’. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/why-you-cant-be-born-gay/

How to be An Effective Manager as A Christian in the Secular World, Part II

6.  Don't assume anything.
This also goes with the first principle (deal with the facts, not fiction).  Know the facts.  Don't assume something to be true or untrue unless you have the required evidence to say so.  You can use intuition, however, from experience, but don't be impulsive.  For example, if an employee's level of productivity suddenly declines when they have a history of great efficiency, don't assume that it's because they no longer care and are suddenly lazy.  Something more serious might be going on, such as depression, or injury.  This is what makes effective communication so vital.  If you communicate effectively, you'll be able to easily obtain all the facts (especially because they trust and respect you), and you won't have to assume anything.

As we know, God doesn't need to assume anything because He knows everything.  As finite beings, we can't ever know absolutely everything about a particular matter, but we can gather the facts about a particular situation to minimise assumption making and thus make a wise decision.  We all know the saying that if you make assumptions, you'll just make an ass out of yourself.  (Pardon the French, but you can find that word int he Bible too!)  Make too many assumptions, and you'll make a fool of yourself.

7.  Employ the social sciences of psychology and social psychology.
You don't need to be an expert in psychology in order to employ these sciences.  Everybody practises these social sciences in every day life.  With psychology, we all observe human behaviour such as eye contact (avoiding eye contact is a sign of lying or insecurity), hand gestures that may suggest being defensive or closed-off or open, the tone of voice someone uses to express an opinion, etc.  With social psychology, we observe how people interact with one another such as the amount of laughter and/or smiling, a furrowed brow during a discussion to suggest some sort of emotional opposition, who's the most and least talkative to indicate who's extroverted and introverted, etc.

As God is our Creator, He obviously understands us the most, so He has as fart greater advantage than we'll ever have.  This doesn't mean that we're incapable of understanding people, however.  By using these two social sciences in our every day lives, we are all able to make inferences of how a person feels.  Of course, you can make erroneous inferences, but making those deductions is still important because it leads you to understanding the individual, even if you get it wrong.  For example, as an introvert, I don't talk a lot unless I'm in a group of people with whom I'm comfortable being around, or when there's a discussion that I'm actually interested in (if it's sports or cars, you'll find that I won't say anything).  Someone who doesn't know me and therefore misunderstands me can infer that I'm a closed-off individual and therefore have a cold heart.  I wouldn't say all this if it hadn't happened before.  The opposite actually happens to be true.  As an introvert, I appear as closed-off at first because I need to spend time around a person before I decide whether or not I want to open up to them.  The more time I spend around a person, the more I open up, and they come to find that I'm actually very open with how I feel and have a very warm heart.  Also, as an introvert, I get my energy by being alone, and being around people is spending that energy.  It's the exact opposite for extroverts.

This principle goes hand-in-hand with the 5th principle of communicating effectively.  Employing the social science of psychology is not just observing human behaviour; it also includes getting yourself involved with human behaviour — taking the time to talk to someone in order to understand them.  As an introvert, I struggle with this the most.  I don't really like talking to people unless it's necessary.

The more you understand a person, the better the relationship will be.  Observing how they interact with other people at work is also indicative of what kind of person they are.  If you notice that they're rude towards their co-workers, you can then create methods to reform their behaviour.  On the other hand, if they're kind and professional, you obviously don't need to do anything about how they interact with their co-workers.

8.  Be professional.
You can tell someone to be professional, but they may not know what that means.  (Common sense seems to be a sparse commodity nowadays.)  This principle applies to all co-workers, but even more so as a manager since you're the one who sets the standards.  Being professional can mean a variety of things, of which the first is to leave what you do outside of work at home; when you're at work, do what's necessary for work.  For example, don't browse Facebook or Pinterest or Twitter when you're on the clock (doing it during lunch is different).  Or leave how you talk at home (e.g. vulgarity), and use professional and appropriate language at work.  But the primary attribute of professionalism is sticking to the mission.  I talked about this earlier.  Don't stray from the mission.  The best person in history who stuck to his mission was Jesus Christ.  Upon His incarnation, everything He did was for the purpose of saving the human race from sin.  Every word He said, every parable He told, and every deed He did all had the objective of His mission i mind:  spreading the Gospel and saving humanity.  Before His ascension, He commanded His subordinates (the Apostles and every Christian) to continue His mission to spread the Gospel message in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), everything they do for the objective that people may be saved in Christ.  And 2,000+ years later, we Christians still work toward that mission today.

Likewise, at work, everything you and the people under you do needs to add to the company's or department's current mission/goal.  If you're a manager, think of what your current mission or goal is.  Remember that everything you do as manager is important and needs to continue the process that will lead to the best final output of that goal.  As manager, you may have several goals.  Prioritise those goals and take each of them one at a time with actions that benefit each goal, and the final output will be accomplished.

9.  Explain problems.
Arising problems are inevitable within any organisation.  Any problem that arises, it's best to communicate those problems to the people you manage.  If they know what the problem is, they'll be able to take measures to fix the problem.  As manager, you don't always have all the answers.  Communicating the problem with others will create more opportunities for the problem to be fixed with ideas that you've never thought of before.  However, you may happen to know how to solve a particular problem, whether you come up with it on your own or upper management tells you how they want it to be fixed. This is when you need to both alert your department about the problem and then advise them on how to fix it.

Jesus never let people deal with their problems on their own.  Whether He told people a parable to help them with a particular issue or directly fixed their problems by handling it Himself (e.g. a miracle), Jesus always helped people with their problems.  Likewise, as manager, you can't fix problems by yourself; you will need the help of the people underneath you.  Or rather, those who are beside you.  Don't think of your subordinates as being beneath you, but rather beside you as you all work together towards the organisation's common goal.  They can't help you if they're not aware of what the problem is and aren't advised on what to do if they don't know how to fix it.  Likewise, if they have a problem, get yourself involved.  Fixing a problem is a team effort and the best way to do that is, again, communicating effectively by explaining what the problem is, the alternative methods you can use to fix it, and then choosing a course of action from among the alternatives.

10.  Measure your worth and the worth of your people in the eyes of God.
I saved this one for last because this is the most important principle.  If anything, practise this principle and all the others will follow.  Not everybody you work with is going to be Christian.  They may be atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other religion.  Having employees who aren't Christian is no excuse to treat them differently from those who are Christian.  Indeed, their religion isn't any of your business in the first place, but if you happen to know what their religion is, that doesn't give you reason to treat them like crap.  No matter what they believe, they are still human, meaning that they were also created in the image of God, which means that God still loves them.  God still loves them and therefore desires for them all to be saved.  Even though they don't deserve to be saved (just as we don't), God still considers them worthy enough to be loved by sending His Son to die for them.  Jesus didn't die for Christians alone; Jesus died for the whole world (John 3:16), and that includes those who aren't Christian.  Therefore, people ought to be treated with respect and the love of Christ no matter their religious beliefs because regardless of their religion, God still loves them and desires to know them.  Being Christian doesn't mean God loves you more than those who are not.  Being Christian, in a nutshell, just means that you undeservedly have Christ's imputed righteousness and His salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).  If your subordinates happen to know that you're Christian or discover that you are at a later time and you treat non-Christians like garbage, how do you think that will reflect Christ?  Doing so would be a misrepresentation of Christ and a failure of spreading the larger mission:  spreading the Gospel message.  It'll convince them to not be a part of Christianity at all.  We are ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), therefore represent Him the way we're supposed to.

Just as you consider others as very valuable because of God's love, do the same for yourself.  No matter your failures or shortcomings, God always loves you.  God doesn't measure you by your successors and failures.  We do that, but God measures you in the blood of Christ.  He sees you covered in His blood, forgiven and justified in the baptism of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Your worth is in Christ, not in the tasks that you do every day.