He Rejoiced Greatly Having Believed In God

In Acts 16, verses 23 through 34, we have the account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer at the hands of Paul and Silas who preached the gospel to him and his household. As you recall Paul and Silas had been imprisoned in Philippi when an earthquake struck at midnight, their chains were loosed, and all the prison doors were opened. The jailer, being responsible for all the prisoners and assuming all had escaped, was ready to take his own life when Paul called out to him. The opportunity was given to preach the gospel to him and his household.

The first recorded words of the jailer after bringing Paul and Silas out of their confinement were "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NAS) There is a lot of information that can be gleaned from those few words. First, it can be fairly inferred that the jailer was convinced that Paul and Silas were men of God who knew God's will. Perhaps their reputation had preceded them here in Philippi as not long before this they had converted Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and also had cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl, a spirit that was telling all that "these men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation." (Acts 16:17 NAS) All of this had occurred in the city before the jailing of Paul and Silas.

Secondly, it is clear the jailer felt confident that there were things that he would have to do to be saved. It was just not clear what those things were, not clear to him.

In response to the jailer's question, Paul and Silas tell him to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NAS) This was a statement that needed clarification calling for preaching. What does it mean to "believe in the Lord Jesus"? The jailer needed to know. What was to be believed? He was receptive if he could only learn what it was he was to believe.

Verse 32 indicates that Paul and Silas did speak "the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house." (Acts 16:32 NAS) But, that is all that is said about the preaching. We have to look elsewhere to find what the gospel is, for we are all certain he preached the gospel to the jailer. The gospel is, after all, "the power of God for salvation to every one who believes." (Rom. 1:16 NAS)

We find what the gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 where Paul says, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." (NAS) He then goes on to explain it to us--that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised the third day.

So, yes, we have a good idea of some of the things Paul and Silas preached to the Philippian jailer. But, was believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the remission of our sins all there was to it? Those who believe that put themselves in a bind. How?

Because the demons also believe and shudder (James 2:19), are they saved? Because "many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him," (John 12:42 NAS) were they saved? Can one be saved who is unwilling to confess Jesus? Can one believe in Jesus but refuse to confess him and yet be saved? Paul says, "With the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Rom. 10:10 NKJV) In the verse just before that (Rom. 10:9) he says, "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Yes, "if" you do. The word "if" has meaning.

Another bind that those find themselves in who say all one has to do is believe in order to be saved is that they leave out repentance altogether. If you can leave out repentance that ought to save the demons, shouldn’t it?

Yes, I am sure Paul taught faith in the Lord Jesus and when understood properly that will save a man. However, faith in the Lord Jesus means you believe what Jesus taught and believe it so strongly you obey him. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not just mental assent. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not disregarding his word as of no account.

Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS) Too many in so-called Christendom say, “Yes, I believe in Jesus. I just cannot believe what he says in regards to some of his statements.” Well, that is an impressive statement of faith, is it not?

We know with certainty Paul preached baptism to the Philippian jailer, for the text says of the jailer, "immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." (Acts 16:33 NAS) I say Paul preached baptism again, for earlier in the same city and in this very same chapter, he preached it to Lydia as well (Acts 16:15). Unless he preached another gospel in other places than what he did in Philippi, he always preached baptism in preaching the gospel whether it is mentioned specifically or not. Baptism is the water part when Jesus said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NAS)

Every sincere seeker after God ought to pay close attention to verse 34. Do you want to know what it means to believe in God? The text says of the jailer that he "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." We know of a certainty that whatever else that phrase means, it means at least this much--baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed. Paul and Silas taught it to the jailer and his household, they believed what they were taught, they obeyed it, and they were baptized immediately in the very late night hours (after midnight). When this was done, it is said then that the jailer "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God."

Let me ask a question. Would the jailer have rejoiced had he heard Paul and Silas preach baptism but then said, “I don't believe it and I refuse to do it?” Could it have been said, in that scenario, that he believed the word of the Lord? Even the skeptic must admit that if Paul and Silas preached baptism, then it must have been part of "the word of the Lord." (Acts 16:32 NAS) It was a part, I might add, which they believed--believed and obeyed.

But, all of this raises other questions. Why preach baptism to the jailer or anyone else? Might it not be that Paul and Silas spoke by inspiration? Might it not be that baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed and obeyed? Might it not be that Peter, speaking by inspiration in Acts 2:38, knew what he was talking about and that baptism is actually and literally for the remission of sins? Yes, I say, it might be. I say even more, it is. It is not to say it comes alone without faith and repentance, but it comes with them.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

When Did Obedience Become Legalism

We seem to be living in a time in the present Christian era where people seem to feel that all that matters in Christianity is love and God’s grace, when obedience is seen as legalism, and where it is felt that people do not have to obey biblical commands for salvation except, of course, for the command to believe in Jesus as the Savior.

Grace is made cheap. Live as you like, call yourself a Christian, and God’s grace will cover you. It is said it is what is in the heart, generally defined as the emotions, that counts. Feelings and emotions are defined as love for God. God’s grace will cover a life of sin just so a person believes in God in some abstract sense. I might add, if you doubt this, just attend a few funerals and see if you can learn of any deceased who are not already in heaven based on the conversations you hear and the preaching that is done there.

People talk about love for God all the time. It is in their heart (their emotions). Yet, quote a passage to them like 1 John 5:2–3, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (NKJV), and you immediately have problems, for that is not what they want to hear. It is not how they want love defined. Love is emotion, not obedience, in their way of looking at things.

In 1 Cor. 13 we have Paul discussing love in verses 4–8. In verse 6 of that chapter he says love “does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (NKJV). Iniquity is the opposite of obedience. One can no more join love with iniquity than he can a lamb with a lion. But we have come to believe God’s grace covers everything and obedience is not necessary. We now accept iniquity because we are no longer willing to accept the Bible as the standard of authority for what is holy and right versus what is wrong.

To condemn sin as did John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus is today seen to be unloving, intolerant, and judgmental, and thus unchristian in the minds of many. Yet, in the New Testament, Paul, by the Holy Spirit, commanded Timothy to reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2 NAS) and not go along with or hold his silence in the presence of men sinning. Titus was told not only to rebuke but to do so sharply (Titus 1:13; see also Titus 2:15). The Ephesians were told, thus meaning it is applicable to us as well, to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11 ESV). But today that is seen as sticking your nose in where it does not belong, and we are no longer to call anything short of murder, rape, or robbery, and such like, sin.

Yes, obedience to Bible standards of conduct (commands) is now seen as legalism. Sin is renamed and given polite names or, as is often the case, simply dropped off the radar altogether. Fornication is an example of a sin that has dropped off the radar screen and out of sight. Hardly anyone takes it to be a sin today. It is commonly expected that just about every young person is going to engage in it, and certainly every unmarried adult. It is just taken for granted as being a normal part of society and not a serious sin at all. What happened to the Bible?

Homosexuality has disappeared from the American consciousness as sinful. The majority approve of it and applaud it and gay marriage. To those who object we speak of their intolerance and hate. We call it a civil right. However, the Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20 NKJV). And surely those who read this know the New Testament condemns homosexuality. If not, read 1 Cor. 6:9–10.

Adulterous marriages are celebrated as God-approved despite the Bible’s teaching on adultery. This listing of sins could go on almost endlessly, sins that in our culture are no longer considered sinful despite what the Bible teaches. Sin is no longer considered a serious thing in our culture.

The religiously liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) say God loves all men (true), so we say we can rejoice in Christian fellowship with those actively practicing these and other sins—no repentance required. Of course, in doing so we destroy the Bible as written, but the national desire today is to abandon the Bible altogether as a standard and make our own Bible, even if unwritten.

The way we do that is by making the Bible we have mean anything we want it to mean and abandon all rational exegesis. We simply say it does not mean what it seems to say. It means what we say it means, not what it says. In that, we are much like the Catholics who say Jesus was the only child Mary ever had. Of course, all our conclusions are based on love, love the way we, not God, define it. We are perverting the faith and making up our own religion as did the Jews of Jesus’ day. They were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3 NKJV), and we seem to be doing the same thing.

Jesus said, “But why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46 NKJV). Does anyone have an answer? Love means obedience, and obedience, despite the cry to the contrary, is not legalism.

Did you ever give it thought that if obedience is legalism, Jesus was the biggest legalist of all time? He kept every commandment and never sinned once. He said, “I always do those things that please him” (John 8:29 NKJV). He was obedient to death (Phil. 2:8). He was the only one who ever kept the law of God perfectly, obedient in every detail.

Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, not once. He condemned them for hypocrisy, for not keeping the law, for making commandments and adding them to God’s word and making them of equal force with God’s word, binding them on men. We often today say they were legalists, and I do not object to that designation of them, but I add this for clarification—their legalism was not for God’s law but for the law they had made and added to his law.

Jesus said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19 NKJV).

Yes, in the passage just quoted Jesus was speaking to an audience who were living under the Law of Moses, but where, oh where, have people come up with this modern-day idea that Jesus just does not care about obedience anymore? Put another way, or phrased another way, what has happened to sin? When did it go out of existence? But that is where we are today, and it is an idea that is fairly prevalent among a significant number of people who consider themselves to be Christians.

I give people credit in a place where perhaps some others would not. Some would say we have come to this place because people today are just ignorant of God’s word. Well, there is truth in that, for sure, but why is it so? Is there a shortage of Bibles? No, that is not it. There is a lack of will to read them—that is for sure. And there is a lack of a will to believe them and obey them. Peter said there was such a thing as people who are “willingly... ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5 KJV). If we do not read and study, how can we keep from falling into the category of those who are willingly ignorant?

But, as I said, I am more inclined to give people credit in the knowledge department than some others, believing, for the most part, people do know right from wrong. I believe the cry of “legalism” against the teaching of obedience is in reality a smoke screen to cover up and make an excuse for a life lived for self, a worldly life. It is my life, and I want to live it the way I want to. The claim of being saved solely by love and God’s grace provides the cover one needs for such a life to legitimize it before the public.

We all tend to try to hide the wrong we know we are doing, and one of the best ways of doing that is to legitimize it—get everyone else to think what we are doing is not wrong. Hey, everybody else is doing it—right? How can it be wrong then? The Pharisees of Jesus’ time were full of sin, and yet to the general public they appeared to be righteous. “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men” (Matt. 23:28 NKJV). They had gotten the people of their day to swallow their religion with all the additions and man-made commandments they had made.

The standard for a righteous man has been so lowered over the years that in the public’s eyes, even if you have not worshiped the Lord in a regular assembly of the saints for the past 20 years, you are still headed straight to heaven just so you are a believer.

If you had the opportunity to get a hold of an old church roll book from, say, 100 years ago, you would probably be shocked, as you would see notations made in the margins of people being withdrawn from as per 2 Thess. 3:6: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (NKJV).

Since we today have decided what love is and have taken it out of God’s hands, it is no longer considered to be an act of love to withdraw from sinners who will not repent, even though the purpose was “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5 NKJV). That is about as noble and as loving a reason as one could have, and yet today, if we were to practice discipline in the church by withdrawing fellowship from those living in sin and who will not repent, it would be considered unloving and unchristian even though an inspired apostle commanded it. It would be considered legalism gone wild. Have we made our own religion as did the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers of Jesus’ day?

It is getting very hard to be a preacher today unless you do not mind going along with the crowd. The trouble is the crowd is heading to a hot, hot spot, and the preacher will be going with them if he does not preach against sin. The preacher is to preach the truth and support it, not go along with the crowd.

My whole point in this article is how we have come to the point in faith where the faith we have is no longer associated with obedience, and obedience is now seen as legalism. The truth is disobedience is sin. Obedience is faithfulness. There are far worse things that can happen to a man than to be called a legalist by one who does not want to obey.

“And having been perfected (Jesus—DS), he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV).

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21 NKJV). Do you want to be like Jesus? If so, start condemning sin and be obedient. You will not be working your way to heaven in doing so. You will simply be an obedient Christian, not a disobedient one. Of the two, whom do you think will receive God’s grace on the last day?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Washing Of Water By The Word--Baptism and Salvation

Baptism is essential to salvation but there are many non-believers, people who do not believe that. I want to deal with one passage today that affirms this doctrine but which is seldom used because the word baptize or baptism is not found in the passage. The phrase used is “washing of water” as found in Eph. 5:25-27.

Eph. 5:25-27 reads as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (NKJV)

The phrase “washing of water” is a direct reference to baptism. “By the word” signifies the reason for the baptism--God’s word. God’s word directs one to be baptized.

Some think they can be saved outside the church. That cannot happen. Why? Because, as the text plainly tells us, that is what Christ gave himself for. Because Christians are the church, and it is Christians who will be saved.

The Bible teaches the church is the body of Christ, Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18, and “he (that is Jesus--DS) is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) Nowhere does the Bible teach that one can be outside the Savior (his body, the church) and be saved. If you can be outside the Savior and be saved, then you can be outside the church and be saved, but not until then. Is there anyone who thinks they can be saved outside the Savior? If you could be, the Savior would not be needed.

One must be “in Christ” to be saved. We are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27). It is “in Christ” where “all spiritual blessings” are found (Eph. 1:3 KJV). Other translations use the phrase “every spiritual blessing.” If you are not in Christ, you are outside the realm where these spiritual blessings are found.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that Jesus sanctified the body and cleansed it by the washing of water (baptism)--that is what it says; read it for yourself. Since you and I are the church, the body, that is how we are sanctified and cleansed. The word sanctify means to make holy; thus, several modern-day translations use the word holy rather than sanctify in the Ephesian passage (see the NIV, CSB, NLT, and the NRSV). For example, the NIV reads “to make her holy” in Eph. 5:26, with reference to the church.

We are told to “pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14 NKJV) It is essential to be made holy, and that is done by the Lord when we obey him by being baptized based on our faith and repentance. When we do, we become “a holy priesthood.” (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) Of course, holiness must be maintained. We are not to become backsliders and fall away.

Jesus cleansed the church, you and I, by the washing of water--baptism. To argue with that is to argue with an inspired apostle--Paul. If you are thinking that possibly the phrase “washing of water” might mean something else other than baptism, then take a look at 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV) “By one Spirit” is the same as “by the word” in Eph. 5:26, for the word is the mind of the Spirit, the Spirit speaking to us, leading us to faith and obedience.

Paul also tells us elsewhere how we enter this body of Christ, how we enter Christ himself, spiritually speaking. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) See also Rom. 6:3.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that baptism is essential.  Note some things that are true if we fail to be washed of water. If you are not washed by water, then you are not sanctified, not made holy. True, the Bible teaches we are sanctified by a number of things, not just the washing of water, but which one of those number of things given in the Bible by which we are sanctified will you cast aside as of no account on your own authority? Will it be the washing of water? If so, it is, indeed, on your own authority.

The wise man says, if God said it, I believe it, and it is essential to believe and obey to the very best of one's ability. We do not have an option of picking and choosing. We cannot legislate for God. Can you be sanctified without the washing of water, be made holy? Our attitude ought to be that everything that is said concerning sanctification and how it comes is true and essential.

But let us move on, for there is more in the text. If the washing of water is the way Jesus cleansed the church, meaning those who became Christians, and that is what the text says, then if I have failed to be baptized, I have not yet been cleansed. Cleansed of what? What is there to be cleansed of? Sin.

But there is much more to this washing. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of sins and says that those who do those things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He then goes on and says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) “By the Spirit of our God” means the Spirit was involved, but we are not told how he was involved, not here. We are told in the passage that is the subject of this article--Eph. 5:25-27. It was by means of the Spirit working through the word. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). It leads a man to faith and obedience. In their washing, the Corinthians were cleansed as much so as the Ephesians.

Of Christians, the Hebrew writer says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) If a person has not had his body washed with the water of which the Hebrew writer is speaking (baptism), then he is not qualified to draw near. He may well attempt to do it anyway and tell himself he is being successful, but he is at odds with the Hebrew writer.

Peter speaks of how to deal with this evil conscience and rid oneself of it. He says, “there is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism,” which he says is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) That is the man who can “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV), having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience. That is the man who has had his body “washed with pure water.” It is the man who was led by the Spirit.

[As an aside, the Heb. 10:22 passage, quoted above, answers those who say that the word "water" is symbolic and is thus not a reference to water baptism. If they are correct, then the physical body was washed with pure symbolism. When one rejects the truth they will believe about anything.]

There is more. In Acts 22:16, Ananias told Saul to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (NKJV) What was Saul going to be baptized in? Water. What was going to happen as a result? The washing away of sins.

I have heard people who do not understand baptism say things like there is nothing in water that can wash away sins, the idea being that sin is like dirt on the body that can be washed off. Well, no, sin is not like dirt on the body where a little water, soap, and a wash rag will take care of it. But there is something in the baptismal waters that will take care of sin. What? The promise of Jesus, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) If a man is saved, he has had his sins remitted. The promise of Jesus is in the water.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, had a promise in the water. He found out if you want the promise of cleansing, you must get in the water. You can read about his experience in 2 Kings 5.

In America today, among those who call themselves Christians, not many believe what Jesus said. They believe, “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” just as well as he who believes and is baptized. They say they are going to be saved by faith, but have no faith in what Jesus said. I find deep irony in that.

Baptism is essential to salvation just as much so as faith and repentance and the confession of Jesus, but there are non-believers who will neither believe nor obey. They are in God’s hands. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31 NKJV) When you will not obey what God has clearly commanded, it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into his hands.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Saved By Jesus Outside The Church

It is not uncommon to hear people express their opinion that organized religion (the church) has nothing to do with salvation; all that matters, it is said, is whether or not one has a personal relationship with Jesus. Some expressed the idea as "Jesus yes, the church no."

I do not know where this "personal relationship with Jesus" language came from for if you type in the phrase in any online Bible concordance you will not get a single return. It is a man-made phrase that is not found anywhere in scripture. I am not fond of terminology that cannot be found in scripture. Why not express biblical concepts in biblical language?

All of that aside, I want to deal with the idea that one can develop this relationship with Jesus on a personal level that will save himself outside the church. If a person means they can be saved outside the Catholic Church, I agree. If they are saying they can be saved outside of a denominational church, I agree. If, however, they are saying they can be saved outside the church one reads about in the Bible and outside of any association whatsoever with other Christians in an organized manner (a congregation) when such association is possible (that is, such congregations exist in the area where one lives) I disagree.

Here is the problem with this whole concept men have that salvation is possible outside the church--God adds to the church every person who is saved. All the saved are in the church and none outside it. That does not mean that every man in the church is saved for backsliding, unfaithfulness, apostasy, and such like enter into the equation. The Bible does not teach once saved always saved. That being said, if you find a saved man, he is going to be found in the church and not outside it.

Scripture is what counts, not what man says, so what does scripture say? It says that "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) This is the church of which Jesus said, "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) If you are saved you cannot help but be in the church for the Lord does the adding at the time one obeys the gospel and he adds only the saved and none who are not saved.

You do not join the church, though many have the misconception they do, but if you obey the gospel in all sincerity of heart the Lord adds you to his church. This adding is to the church universal which consists of all true Christians all over the world wherever they are found and consists both of the living and of those now dead but who died as faithful Christians.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God." (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) He told Timothy he was writing "so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) thus he expected and knew Timothy to be in that house (the church). If you read the book of 1 Timothy you will readily see Paul was not just talking about the universal church. He was instructing Timothy how to conduct himself in an actual organized entity (a church, a congregation) existing on earth. In that entity (an organized church) he gives Timothy instructions on how bishops (or elders, they are one and the same) and deacons are to be appointed (their qualifications) and how widows are to be provided for so that "the church" be not burdened unnecessarily (1 Tim. 5:16 NKJV), etc. The point is that we are talking about the necessity of a congregation and organized religion in what Paul wrote to Timothy.

If you desire to be saved by the blood of Jesus but stay out of the church you are seeking to do the impossible. In Acts 20:17 Paul called for the elders of the church of Ephesus and then encouraged them in Acts 20:28 to "shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood." (NKJV) This church had an actual earthly existence in the city of Ephesus in an organized body of saints (Christians) over which these elders were to shepherd. In the book of Ephesians, Paul says, "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25 NKJV) which is to say he died for it.

Let me ask a question. Could you have lived in the city of Ephesus as a resident back in those days and been saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" while not a member of the church there, the church over which the elders were to oversee or shepherd? In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said to them, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) Who is the "we" in that passage if not the church (the brethren) there? That is who Paul was writing to. But, we know that the brethren there were an organized body overseen by elders (Acts 20:28). Yes, certainly that text has an application beyond just Ephesus, but it certainly includes the Ephesians in the church there.

In Heb. 13:7 we read, "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (NKJV--see also Heb. 13:17, 24) Who are these men who must give an account? It is the same men whom Paul gave Timothy the qualifications to meet (1 Tim. 3:2-7) in order to qualify them as bishops in the church (a bishop and an elder are the same entity in the New Testament). He said, in part, "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5 NKJV) What is the point?

It is this--Christians are to be in organized bodies (congregations) overseen by men Paul was speaking of whom the Bible calls elders, bishops, shepherds, and overseers (all referring to the same men and the same work). How does the man who claims to be saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from an organized body of believers (a congregation) obey the injunction given him to obey and be submissive (Heb. 13:7)? By refusing to join in with fellow disciples in such a body, he separates himself from them and disobeys God.

The truth is every Christian is a living stone (see 1 Peter 2:5) in the spiritual house of God, both in the universal church and the church on the local level if he is living faithfully. The church is made of individual members called by Peter "living stones" which he says "are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV)

There was no such thing in the New Testament as a Christian living separate and apart from a local congregation when such a congregation existed. Certainly, the apostles traveled around along with other evangelists and were not tied to a specific location but when they were in a locality and a congregation was established there it is obvious they made themselves a part of it. One cannot read the New Testament and deny that. They did not try and live off by themselves, as Christian hermits, apart from the brethren and claim no fellowship or association with them. That said, an apostle was over an elder in terms of God-given authority.

Look at the epistles. To whom are they addressed? When not to an individual was it not generally the case that it was to a church in a particular locality? It is "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (2 Cor. 1:1 NKJV), "to the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), "to the saints who are in Ephesus" (Eph. 1:1 NKJV), "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1 NKJV), "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse" (Col. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians in God" (2 Thess. 1:1 NKJV).

Since one is not required, according to some, to be a member of a local congregation, an organized church as it is often put, what does one do with the epistles written to these churches? Do the messages contained therein not apply to us since we can be saved, it is said, by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from the church? Can we just toss these epistles away?

To whom did Jesus have John write to in Revelation chapters two and three? Was it not to the angels of the seven churches of Asia? The messages were meant for seven churches. We can learn from them even today but at the time they were specific to seven congregations or churches. Read those two chapters. You will see some churches were in pretty bad shape, but Jesus was still interested in them. However, we are told today the church doesn't matter. It mattered to Jesus, so why does it not to the persons who believe all that matters is a "personal relationship with Jesus?"

The church consists of brethren united in faith, worship, labor, and love. One of the great messages of the New Testament is love for the brethren. How do you love the brethren when you want no part of them for they are found in the church and you want no part of the church? How do you encourage them? How do you worship with them? How do you help them when you won't even associate with them long enough to know who they are or what their needs are?

It is a sin to try and be saved by a personal relationship with Jesus separate and apart from the church (from the brethren). "Let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, … for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:24-27 NKJV) One who thinks he has a personal relationship with Jesus while ignoring his brethren and thus being disobedient to God's commands is self-deceived.

It is mission impossible to be saved outside the church. Sardis was an example of a church where few inside it were going to be saved (Rev. 3:4), that is unless they repented, but nonetheless, all in Sardis who were going to be saved were in the church there. Jesus "is the savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18, 24). One is either in that which Jesus is going to save or he is not in it. It is that simple, even black and white.

I make one point of clarification as I am drawing to a close. Sometimes it is not possible, at least for a time, to have membership in a local congregation. Why? It may not exist, the Ethiopian eunuch's situation being an example. Or, the local church may be in apostasy so that to join it would be to promote error of the most serious nature. In such cases the individual makes up the local congregation and the job is to evangelize and establish a body of believers in the area. Every Christian is a part of the universal church and he/she needs to be a part of a local congregation as well if at all possible.

I advocate for a return to New Testament Christianity and that can only be done through restoration. The New Testament is our pattern, our blueprint, for what it takes to make one a Christian and what it takes to remain faithful. The same is true of the New Testament as a pattern and blueprint for the church.

I know many do not believe in the concept of restoration. I would simply say to those people that to be consistent they ought to never again use a blueprint or pattern for anything. Why? Because they have just confessed that to them a pattern or blueprint is worthless.

There is nothing illogical in the concept of restoration. The problem is not in the concept. The problem is that New Testament Christianity is a radical religion that places stringent demands upon humanity and few want to be bound by its cords. Men would rather do it their way than God's way. If we lived in Noah's time and place we would tell God we will build the ship as long as we do not have to use your pattern and can build it the way we want to.

The concept of restoration is right. It is the right idea. There is a pattern God has given and we ought to try and live by it both as individuals and as organized congregations.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]