Pilate's Question

Pilate’s response to Jesus’ statement that he had come to bear witness to the truth, John 18:37-38, is well known. Pilate’s reply “What is truth?” is a question that has been asked down through the ages. Up until recent times, the idea of truth as a thing a person could find, grasp, and hold onto was not in doubt. Truth was out there; all you had to do was find it. Today that is being called into question; enter the age of postmodernism. Postmodernists do not believe objective truth exists in matters of values, morals, and religion.

The postmodernist immediately comes into conflict with Jesus, for how can Jesus say he came to bear witness to the truth if the truth does not exist? Again, Jesus said in John 8:45, “I tell the truth” (NKJV), but he does not tell the truth if the postmodernist is right, for truth cannot be told if it does not exist. The word “truth” is found in 100 verses in the New Testament of the New King James Version of the Bible, but to the postmodernist mindset talk about truth is meaningless. Postmodernism is anti-Christian.

Postmodernists contradict themselves and thus prove the fallacy of their philosophy when they say objective truth does not exist while declaring it to be objective truth that “objective truth does not exist.” One might add that any talk about “subjective truth” is an oxymoron. If truth exists at all, it is objective truth.

Truth either exists or does not. Truth cannot exist sometimes but not at other times. No one would deny that there are times when we are unable to discern truth from error, but the truth always exists whether we discern it or not. My ignorance of truth does not destroy truth.

It is easy to see the attractiveness of postmodernism in our society. If truth does not exist in an absolute sense, then you can have your own personal truth and I can have mine. I will call it “my life.” No one will be able to judge me or condemn me justly, and I will take God and thus accountability out of the picture altogether. It allows me to live my own life the way I want to live it. Of course, that is the very thing Jesus came to save us from—save us from ourselves.

We have a desire to live our own lives without being judged or held accountable for our actions. We desire respect and honor even when we do the dishonorable; no one and no authority dare shame us. If objective truth does not exist, who can hold us to any moral accountability? Not even God himself can, for we took him out of the picture, so we think.

If we try to rationalize our life and behavior by saying this is what is true for me that does not get us off the hook. It is not about the way I see things, not if God exists and there is a higher power. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8-9 NKJV) “There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” (Prov. 14:12 NKJV) “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” (Jer. 10:23b NKJV)

If we say no one believes postmodernism, no one believes truth does not exist, then how does one explain the change in moral values that has come about in America in the past 50 to 60 years? It is hard to say our culture has not been affected by postmodern thought. According to the Pew Research Center, only 5% of our children were born outside marriage in 1960. What is that number today? Have our values changed? We have adopted the idea, in our society, that anything in moral (should one say “immoral”) conduct should be allowed to stand, and no one should say a thing against it or criticize it in any way.

As for the New Testament, it is not to be allowed in making moral judgments; in that sense, it is to be banned from having any influence on our thinking or way of life as a society. Who among us would deny the effort to secularize America and to take Christianity entirely out of the life of our nation on every level except, at least so far, inside the four walls of places of public worship?

When I was growing up I remember the Billy Graham crusades would be nationally televised from time to time by one or more of the major TV networks. Can anyone, and I do mean anyone, imagine such a thing happening in the America of today? I add I am not a Baptist, but I am just making the point of the change that has come over American society just during my lifetime.

When one takes away the foundations upon which to build a life, some solid rock, some absolute standards of right and wrong, which is the very thing postmodernism does, how does one ever judge what one ought to do? Under postmodern thought you may never be wrong, for there is no judgment, but can you ever be right, for there are no standards by which to judge? Life becomes an element of chance, just a guess as to what is the best course of action.

Postmodernism takes away hope, guidance, and direction. It takes away a purpose for living. It is ungodly. There is no hope for heaven. God becomes a myth. Here and now is all you have, so, since there are no standards, do as you well please as long as you can stay out of prison.

Postmodernism is intolerant. It is not to be questioned. It is to be accepted, no questions asked. To question it would be to pass judgment, a thing postmodernism will not allow. If truth does not exist, a tenet of postmodernism, then judgments cannot be passed, for if there is no truth, there is no standard by which to judge. But the postmodernists contradict themselves again, for they do not hesitate to judge Christianity. While they claim tolerance, they prove themselves to be very intolerant to any who would oppose them.

Postmodernism makes it impossible to judge evil from good and thus comes into conflict with the Bible, for judging evil from good is a thing one finds on almost every page of the Bible. Evil, from the postmodernist’s point of view, is not to be fought, for who can define evil? Who can pass judgment?

If one cannot judge evil, then one wonders what action a true postmodernist might take if someone was to break into his home to rape, pillage, and kill. If objective truth does not exist, how can one declare the intruder’s actions to be evil and therefore justifiably resist them?

When, as the old saying goes, the rubber meets the road, this is a most dangerous philosophy, for it presumes real evil does not exist in this world. Evil is just a judgment call. Postmodernism cannot declare Hitler or ISIS evil. If there is no evil, you cannot confront it. When evil is not confronted, where does that leave the individual or the nation?

The postmodernist’s mindset undermines the foundation of many of the things man has considered virtues down through the ages—things like love, kindness, goodness—for, without absolute truth existing, how do you define any of these things? If you cannot define virtues, how do you express them? Was Hitler’s definition of love as good as anyone else’s? A postmodernist cannot be consistent and say no, but a Christian can.

More and more people are coming down on Christianity, declaring it to be intolerant and judgmental, an evil in the world. Why? The answer is because very subtly postmodernist thought has crept into the very pores of our society. One can almost say of our society today that if the Bible is for it, we are against it, and if the Bible is against it, we are for it.

Adultery is commonplace today, fornication and living together outside of marriage are things people think little about, and now the desire seems to be to make homosexual relationships an honorable thing on par with the marriage God ordained in the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6) between a man and a woman.

Add to those things abortion, which runs rampant. Planned Parenthood reported 327,653 abortions in 2014, which averages out to 37 an hour, and the president of the organization says they are proud to provide the procedure. So we kill babies and are proud of the opportunity to help people do it.

In our quest to live our own lives the way we want, we end up discarding the New Testament of Christ as having any real impact on our lives and our society. We will do as we please. We have become a secular non-God-fearing society where nearly anything goes.

The problem every man has with the Bible is that it acts as a mirror. We read it and begin thinking thoughts that trouble us, for we see ourselves as we truly are—sinners. The word of God judges us (John 12:48), and we know that judgment condemns us. It is more pleasing to reject the word of God and its values than to accept it.

God offers grace and salvation to sinners, but that would require giving up the life we desire to live and submitting our will to God’s will. After all, we have some sins we kind of enjoy, and who wants to give those up? “Everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:20 NKJV) “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light…” (John 3:19 NKJV)

How does one create within a man or woman love for God, a longing, and a desire for God? How does one create within a man a felt need for God? Right now those feelings are in short supply and a national longing for God does not exist. According to the statistics I have seen, only around 17% of Americans will be in any kind of Christian worship service on an average Sunday (see The American Church in Crisis by David Olson, 2009). As long as America is at war with God, truth will elude it.

If America and the modern-day American cannot find objective truth, that does not mean God has lost it. God knows good from evil; he is willing to judge it.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:10 NKJV)

Where does that leave the postmodernist in the Day of Judgment? They can only hope Christianity is just a fairy tale, but if it is, then man is just another animal whose life ultimately amounts to nothing. That is the joy found in postmodern thought. Hope is destroyed and man is doomed to an eternal grave.

Postscript: This article was written before gay marriage was legalized. I don’t hear as much about postmodernism today (2026) as I did back when I wrote this piece, but that is because it has become such an accepted thing in our society that its tenets are rarely questioned any longer.

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

Scripture And Tradition In Catholicism

Roman Catholics are not willing to accept the Bible as the sole authority in religion. To do so would destroy the Catholic Church, for once you remove the authority of the Catholic hierarchy, there goes the authority of the church and its power over men.

The Catholic Church in history sought to keep the scriptures from the laity. “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament … we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p. 195). At the Council of Tarragona in 1234 it was decreed, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments.”

The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI pretty much sums up the attitude the Roman Catholic Church held for centuries regarding the Bible and the laity.

From the encyclical INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

“1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that we now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher ‘common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,’ and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.”

And more from the same source:

“12. … In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”

The last three lines explain the fear of the scriptures on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—the fear that those who read the scriptures will have their eyes opened and reject “the tradition of the Fathers” and “the interpretation of the Catholic Church.” That did happen, the Reformation, and we entered into the modern era where attempts to withhold the scriptures became an act of futility, impossible to do. However, by studying history we can see what the desire had been as long as it was possible to carry it out.

Part of Catholic tradition, and essential to it, is to have scripture interpreted the way the hierarchy wants it interpreted. Thus, for example, no matter how clear the New Testament text seems to be to the average person, it remains a requisite to Catholicism that Mary, the mother of Jesus, be a perpetual virgin. You are incapable of reading the scriptural texts about Mary and understanding them without the aid of the Catholic Church. When you read about Jesus having brothers and sisters, that runs against the tradition and so cannot be a correct understanding; the church will tell you what those verses are saying. Even if you have a Ph.D., interpreting those verses will be too tough for you without their aid.

But what is Catholic tradition? It might surprise you. When most of us think of tradition we think of that which developed in the past in the family or some institution—a school, a team, a country, etc.—whereby certain activities or customs are passed on from time past into the present day. It might be a traditional yearly get-together. We all understand tradition in that aspect of it.

But we also understand that, as tradition has a beginning, it also has an end. If you are older, you have likely experienced it in your own family. What you once did as tradition you no longer do. That is fine in the normal course of the life of a person; the circumstances of our lives change over time, but when it comes to religion we do not expect an ever-changing God with ever-changing doctrines and commandments for us to live by. Yet, that is exactly what you get with religious tradition in Roman Catholicism.

The change from the Mosaical Law to Christianity was not a change of God’s mind but planned before the world was established. “He (Christ—DS) indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV) He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8 NKJV) He was the seed promised to Abraham, that through his seed all the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18, Gal. 3:8, 16). The point is that God does not change and did not change. Roman Catholicism changes continually.

The average person, not knowing any better, would think that when a doctrine is based on tradition in Catholicism it would mean that the early church held that doctrine. That is what you would think, but you would be mistaken. Under Catholicism, a doctrine based on tradition can begin evolving at any point in time. It does not have to trace its roots back to the first century. Why not? Because Catholicism is its own authority. It derives its authority from itself; it sees itself as the fountain, or source, of authority. Thus one will find various Catholic dogmas first stated in generations far removed from the first century and the early church.

For example, the doctrine of purgatory was officially proclaimed as dogma in 1439. By dogma, it is meant you are obliged to believe it if you are to be a faithful Catholic. This means you could have been a faithful Catholic and not believed in purgatory until 1439, well over a thousand years after Christ. After 1439 you are unfaithful if you don’t believe in it. You have a moving target for faithfulness.

Now where do you find purgatory in the New Testament? You don’t is the quick and accurate answer. If they tell you such and such scriptures teach it (and I do know they rely on certain scriptures for this), then my response is, “Why did it take you over a thousand years to discover it?” The point I am getting at is that Catholicism makes up its doctrines and dogmas as it goes along. It is like playing a game where you are the sole rule maker and can change the rules as the game goes along and no one has a right to challenge you; thus you always win.

Now for the Catholics, I do understand that the doctrine of purgatory evolved and began with the idea of praying for the dead. From there one idea led to another, but that is just my point—the doctrine was not given by revelation but by the philosophizing of men. There was no revelation; there was only men’s reasoning; it was “this is what seems right and reasonable to us.” That is what all of us non-Catholics have to understand about Catholicism. Tradition with the Catholics is often no more than the evolution of thought among Catholics, especially the Catholic hierarchy, until a dogma, an official teaching, comes out of it.

What I have done here with the doctrine of purgatory you can do with many other dogmas found in Catholicism. Search out the date the doctrine became dogma and begin asking questions about it like why then and not earlier. Why now? What is the source, etc., etc.? Try it with the teachings about Mary. I say that because I know you will find fruitful digging. You will not come up empty-handed.

The non-Catholic must understand the terminology of the Catholic Church or be misled. If you are not Catholic, but Christian, when you hear the phrase “the word of God,” you immediately think of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible. With the Catholic, that is not the case. With the Catholics, the word of God is the combination of the scriptures and what they call “Sacred Tradition.” This is the tradition we have been talking about. Scripture alone is insufficient with the Catholic. Indeed, tradition will overrule scripture, if the need arises, for scripture will be interpreted to ensure the desired outcome, one that is in accord with what they teach, no matter how incredible the interpretation may seem.

Tradition ends up being whatever we want it to be in Catholicism. It can be based on any number of things. It can be simply what we want to believe and thus practice. I mentioned Mary earlier. Catholics have a doctrine called the Assumption of Mary, which says Mary, after her death, was taken bodily into heaven and thus her body never underwent decay. This teaching was not to be found in any of the first twenty ecumenical councils, not found in any creeds, only found in the writings of two of the eighty-eight church fathers, so-called, and both of them wrote in the 7th century; none of the major church doctors wrote of it, and only 1 of the minor doctors did, and he lived hundreds of years after Christ, and yet, based on tradition, the bodily assumption of Mary became dogma.

How could that be? What tradition? It was based on the teachings of the bishops alive at the time. The church calls these bishops and what they are teaching “the Ordinary Magisterium,” and it is considered an infallible guide to the faith. And it was based on what the church in practice was already doing—honoring Mary’s assumption, dogma or no dogma, by its practices. They already had a feast of Mary’s Assumption on August 15th, they had set up in churches sacred images of the assumption, the church’s liturgy made references to Mary’s Assumption, etc.; thus in 1950 the Pope declared the assumption to be dogma. In Catholicism, what we desire, what we are doing, what we are practicing, becomes dogma if we are patient long enough and there is enough of us involved to put the pressure on. This is Catholic tradition placed on an equal footing with the scriptures. Abide in it? Who can?

Well, there is one group—the Catholic hierarchy. They have a huge stake in maintaining the status quo.

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

Hypocrites In The Church

Are there hypocrites in the church? Surely, there are some; however, I think their numbers are vastly exaggerated by those who desire an excuse to be disobedient to the gospel. I think most in the church are sincere. But Paul dealt with hypocrites in the church in his day, for he said in 2 Cor. 11:13, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” (NASU) In Gal. 2:4 he speaks of “false brethren secretly brought in.” (NASU) Hypocrisy is an age-old problem. There are hypocrites about everywhere you look, so why be surprised or shocked to find some in the church?

The question to be dealt with in this article is, what shall we do about hypocrites in the church? As already alluded to, some people lay all the blame for their own failure to obey the gospel on hypocrites in the church. They talk as though they want nothing to do with such hypocrites and it is beneath them to associate with such. They are better than that.

Certainly, the Bible condemns hypocrisy. What may surprise the reader is that the actual word “hypocrisy” is found only in 9 verses of the New American Standard Bible Update edition and “hypocrite” is found in only 2 verses of the same translation. Does that mean there is not a lot written on the subject? Not at all!

One has to remember that in defining a word one learns much by studying words that are the antonyms of the word being defined. We all know that one who is guilty of hypocrisy is one who pretends that which is not true; he pretends to be what he is not; he is a pretender and deceitful. Well, what is the opposite of that? The antonyms for hypocrisy given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary are genuineness and sincerity. Thus, every time your Bible commands honesty and sincerity of heart it condemns hypocrisy.

One needs to read no further than Matthew to get Jesus’ take on hypocrisy. He calls the Pharisees and scribes hypocrites and then says to them, “You, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matt. 23:28 NASU) When Jesus calls a man a hypocrite, as he did the Pharisees and scribes in verse 27, he did not mean it as a compliment. It was a condemnation.

In Luke 12:1, he says, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (NASU) He goes on then to say they will not get by with it for “there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.” (Luke 12:2 NASU) What was true for them will also be true for you and me if we do not guard our hearts closely and act out of sincerity. It is easy, for example, to worship out of duty rather than sincerely from the heart, out of obligation versus desire.

Peter says to all Christians that we are to put “aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” (1 Peter 2:1 NASU) The words Joshua spoke to the children of Israel in Joshua 24:14 are just as applicable to us today as they were to them. He said, “Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth.” (Joshua 24:14 NASU)

Paul’s desire for the Philippians (and for us) was that they might be “sincere and blameless until the day of Christ.” (Phil. 1:10 NASU) The writer of the book of Hebrews instructs us to draw near to God “with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22 NASU) God demands of us honesty, sincerity, and not hypocrisy.

No one can defend a hypocrite, nor would it be right to try and do so, but to those who complain about hypocrites in the church and use them as an excuse to not obey the gospel we ask this question: can you live the Christian life better than those you criticize, or will you even try? You do know, do you not, that living the Christian life is easier said than done? Do you know that the apostle Peter himself was guilty of hypocrisy for a time? Are you making a claim to be better than Peter?

Paul said of Peter, called Cephas in this passage, that “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.” (Gal. 2:11-13 NASU)

Did David not for a time, after committing adultery with Bathsheba and after having her husband killed, act as though (pretending) he had done nothing wrong? Was he not being a hypocrite? It took Nathan the prophet with a direct message from God to get him to face up to his own hypocrisy.

I wonder, will either of these hypocrites be in heaven? Since one does not want to be with hypocrites in the church, one supposes that one feels the same about being with Peter and David in heaven. Yes, we are sure that these men repented of any and all wrongdoing, but the point is that for a time they were hypocrites. Just because a man is a hypocrite today does not mean he will be one tomorrow or that he will never repent. Maybe if you were to become a Christian and play the role of a Nathan, you could save him. Do you care enough to try?

Another point that needs pursuing is this—the fact that a man is in sin does not necessarily imply that he is a conscious hypocrite. It would be easy to look at a church like that at Corinth in the New Testament and read about all of the sins in that congregation and just say “that church is full of hypocrites and sinners. I want nothing to do with them.” Does that attitude save them?

What if Paul had felt that way about them—just a bunch of hypocrites that I want nothing to do with? Would they not all have been lost who were caught up in sin there? Instead, what did Paul do? He says he wrote to them in tears (2 Cor. 2:4), speaking of his first Corinthian letter, teaching, begging, pleading, exhorting them to repent. Did any of them do so?

Paul says in his second letter, speaking of the results wrought by his first letter, that “though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while—I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation.” (2 Cor. 7:8-10 NASU)

When we say we will have nothing to do with hypocrites, we are really saying we have no concern for them; we do not love them as people; let them go to hell; I don’t care. Love does not run away from people but rather toward them.

There are probably not too many Christians who have lived so faithfully for a full lifetime that they can honestly say there was never ever any hypocrisy in their lives. It may be that the public did not see it, but in our inner self we have known we were not right with God. We were tempted for a time and fell. Can you do better than we have done? Great! It is time to get started.

Finally, where is the compassion? A lot that passes for hypocrisy, in the eyes of outsiders, is merely ignorance of Bible teaching. True, given time, we ought to study and gain knowledge on our own, but it takes time. Many simply do not know better. I only argue for a bit of patience and compassion on all of these hypocrites that it is said the church is full of.

Yes, we all despise the idea of hypocrisy and do not have any desire whatsoever to defend true hypocrites. Much of my arguing in this piece has been for the purpose of showing that there is room for love and compassion and that even good and great men are capable of falling into hypocrisy for a time.

But are we not hypocrites ourselves when we say we are too good for all of them, when we say we are too good for the gospel, when we say we are too good for the church? Are we not pretending to be better than we really are?

In closing, I want to mention the conversation Jesus had with Peter after his resurrection when he found Peter and a few of the disciples on the sea having fished all night and caught nothing. You will find the account in John chapter 21 beginning at about verse 15. When Jesus told Peter about what kind of death Peter would die, Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved and said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” (John 21:21 NASU) Please hear Jesus’ response. “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” (John 21:22 NASU)

My final words in this piece—if there are hypocrites in the church, what is that to you as regards your own salvation? You follow Jesus. I think that is exactly what Jesus would tell you. Don’t worry about the other guy unless it is for the purpose of helping him. You follow Jesus.

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

The Way Into Christ

It is only human nature to want the way to heaven to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible, thus the more ways into Christ that can be found the better from a human perspective. We have people we want to see saved and yet we are pretty sure they are not, due to either the way they are living or to the beliefs they hold, thus a broad gate and a wide way to heaven would suit us just fine. But our love for one who does not walk in the light of truth cannot change the truth itself. No man is saved “unconditionally,” which is to say saved regardless of belief, character, and conduct. God saves sinners, true enough, but not while they actively engage in the practice of sin.

The fact remains that no matter how much we desire another’s salvation, it is up to them to bring their life into accord with God’s will, for neither you nor I can broaden the gate. “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14 NKJV)

Salvation is found only in Christ. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV) Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV) Again, he says, “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:9 NKJV)

The point I want to drive home is that salvation is found “in Christ” and not “out of Christ.” Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV) Redemption “is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 3:24 NKJV) Elsewhere Paul says Christ “is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) The body of which he is the Savior is his spiritual body, the church, for the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18), which makes being “in Christ” essential. We must be in that which Christ is going to save. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV), emphasis on “in Christ” and not out of him. Thus it is essential to be “in Christ,” for that is where “every spiritual blessing” is found (Eph. 1:3 NKJV), which, of course, includes salvation itself.

Having firmly established that salvation is found “in Christ,” how then does one enter into Christ? How many ways are there? The Bible teaches there are conditions for entering into Christ, prerequisites if you will, namely faith, repentance, and confession, all of which are absolutely essential to salvation but none of those things by themselves or even taken collectively will put you “into Christ.” Only baptism is said to do that—no, not baptism by itself, but baptism that is built on faith accompanied by repentance with a willingness to confess Christ. Baptism is the final step one takes to enter Christ and find salvation in him.

Hear the language Paul uses: “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV), “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV), “for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV), speaking of the body of Christ. Baptism puts one into Christ where salvation is found. Every passage here uses the phrase “baptized into.” That means something. It has significance.

How does this accord with the examples of conversions as we find them in Acts? In Acts two we have the first gospel sermon ever preached by inspiration, the apostle Peter doing the preaching.  As a result people were made believers. Were they saved when they became believers? God did not consider them saved, for his command to them through Peter was “repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV) Most in the denominational world would say they were saved after faith and repentance, but the rest of God’s command to them that day (be baptized) was not needed for salvation. Well, who are you going to believe? We ought to believe Peter and the Holy Spirit and not our denominational pastors.

Peter said, “Every one of you.” There were to be and are to be no exceptions. This brings to mind Paul’s statement to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV) Note here again the phrase “we were all”—that is every one of us. No, Paul did not do a lot of baptizing personally, but that it was done as a result of his preaching and by those working with him there is no doubt, for “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8 NKJV) No one was considered as “one of them” who was not baptized either on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:38) or at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:13).

Paul himself was made a believer and repented when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Was he saved? Jesus told him directly, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:6 NKJV) The Lord sent Ananias to tell him what he must do. What did Ananias tell him? “Now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (Acts 22:16 NKJV) When a man’s sins are gone, washed away, he is “in Christ.” So no, Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus even though he came to faith and repentance there, not if the word “must” means must.

Paul equates baptism into Christ with putting on Christ. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) When I put on a coat, I am in the coat. When I put on Christ, I am in Christ. That is where I need to be, for that is where salvation is found. Can one be in Christ who has not put on Christ?

We need to always remember Jesus himself commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)—the Great Commission. Why did he do so if it does not matter to him and is non-essential for salvation? Put yourself for a short moment of time into the apostles’ shoes who received this commission (verse 20 teaches we have received that commission as well, for it has been handed down to us). Jesus tells them to make disciples (learners, those who will follow one’s teaching) of all nations, baptizing them into “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV) That is a command. There is no choice about it.

Question—how do you do that in today’s world where people have swallowed the denominational line that you need not be baptized? We are commanded to baptize those made disciples, yet they refuse, thinking it unnecessary even though Jesus commanded it. It ought to be obvious that discipleship ends at that point where one balks at a command and refuses obedience.

I have said nothing on Mark 16:16, the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved,” but do I need to? I do not think so. If words mean anything, it is self-explanatory.

I want to deal with some objections. There are many passages in the Bible that, if one wants to be a careless scholar, he can lead himself astray. For example, take a passage like Rom. 5:1-2, written by Paul, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (NKJV) Or, here is another, “even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.” (Rom. 3:22 NKJV) A careless scholar takes these passages and many similar ones found throughout the New Testament and says “see, here it is, salvation is by faith and baptism has nothing to do with it.”

Some things are obvious about this kind of scholarship. For one thing, it pits the writer, Paul, against himself, not only in other books of the Bible he wrote but in this very same book itself—the book of Romans. If the reader will just read on to chapter 6, he will find baptism.

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” (Rom. 6:3-8 NKJV)

How about the person who has not been baptized into Christ’s death? What if you have not been “united together in the likeness of his death?” (Rom. 6:5 NKJV) The text says “if we have.” (Rom. 6:5) It does not say “if we have not.” Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3), and that being the case, it is also into the benefits or blessings of Christ’s death. You only walk in newness of life, a new creature, a new creation, when you arise as such from the waters of baptism, for “our old man was crucified with him.” (Rom. 6:6 NKJV) Crucifixion means death. We were baptized “into death.” (Rom. 6:4) We arise from the baptismal waters to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) because “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) The text says “If we died with Christ.” (Rom. 6:8 NKJV) It does not say “if we did not die with Christ.” We need to reason as we read.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jesus speaking, John 3:3 NKJV) “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Jesus, John 3:5 NKJV)

A man is saved by faith—the Bible teaches that—but it is a faith that truly believes and thus acts. That is why, on the Day of Pentecost, when God told the people, speaking through Peter, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, the people did it. Why? Because they believed God’s message. That is why Paul, then known as Saul, was baptized when God, speaking through Ananias, told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins. Why? Because he believed what God’s messenger Ananias told him.

Faith or belief has been perverted today. Thus today you cannot read Peter’s sermon as delivered on the Day of Pentecost in Acts two, believe it, and be accepted as a man of faith by the majority in Christendom. Why? Because the consensus is today that you do not have to believe what Peter said to do for the remission of sins, and if you do believe it, that is heresy. Thus there can be no faith in what Peter preached as a command to the people that day. Faith today thus means no faith. Yes, it is strange and hard to reason out (maybe because there is no reason to it). It is a perversion of faith. Scriptural faith means you believe what Peter preached, not disbelieve it.

In the Bible, when it comes to salvation, faith and obedience are so linked together that there can be no saving faith without the obedience that proceeds from it. Here is a perfect example. Heb. 3:18-19, “And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” (NKJV) Why did the children of Israel under Moses’ leadership not enter the land of Canaan, the land of rest? Because they heard God’s command to go take the land, but they did not believe God (did not believe he would give them the power to overcome the inhabitants) and, not believing, they would not obey. That is where most of Christendom is today with baptism. They know what the Bible clearly says about it, but they are unwilling to obey because they do not believe plain statements of scripture concerning baptism’s function and purpose.

One thing that would help men greatly in understanding faith is if they would learn what a synecdoche is. A synecdoche is a figure of speech “by which we speak of the whole by a part, or a part by using a term denoting the whole…This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners. The whole number of conditions is indicated by the use of one. Generally the first one is mentioned—that of faith—because without it nothing else could follow.” (Prof. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, pages 300-305) We should not read the Bible, come across the word faith, and think without giving it thought that it necessarily means mental assent alone. Be a scholar and study it out and see, based on the context and the totality of New Testament teaching on the subject, what the word means where it is located.

I want to deal with one other passage, and that by Peter, before closing. In Acts 10:43, Peter is at the house of Cornelius preaching and says this, “To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV) This is the same Peter who preached on the Day of Pentecost that those there must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Has he now changed his tune in chapter 10, at a later date, and is he now preaching another gospel?

No, for in the New Testament, faith and baptism fit together as a unit. It is simple; if you believe, if you truly believe, you are baptized. Again, did Peter change his tune here versus what he taught on the Day of Pentecost, no, not at all. The text says five verses later, speaking of Peter addressing Cornelius and his household, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48 NKJV) One who believes in Jesus believes what Jesus said, and what Jesus said was “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) What Jesus said was, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV) Yes, even Cornelius had to be baptized and was “commanded” to do it.

Baptism is a test of the purity or sincerity of faith. It is not whether you believe me but whether you believe Jesus and his apostles. Yes, there is only one way into Christ, but man has sought out many inventions to try and circumvent the way of the Lord.

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