Peter's Preaching And The Apostle's Preaching

It is not uncommon to hear people express doubts about the harmony of the preaching and teaching found in the New Testament, often doing so by making the claim that the various writers of the New Testament differed in what they taught. Often those who make such claims will pit Paul against James or Peter against Paul.

The truth is the scriptures do not belong to Paul, or James, or Peter, or any other writer even if their name happens to be attached to a book or letter. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV) The scriptures came by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God used men's tongues and pens to give us the message of inspiration. To say that one New Testament preacher/writer contradicted another is to say that God himself is inconsistent and says and teaches one thing at one time and another thing at another time. It is to say there is more than one gospel which is the very thing scripture denies.

One can "pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7 NKJV) but you cannot make two gospels out of one. Paul says, by inspiration, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NKJV) One gospel was preached by inspiration.

Jesus commanded the apostles, "But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:11 NKJV) I quote that passage as I want you the reader to have it in mind for I want to take a look at a specific instance of just such an occasion and the preaching that was done on that occasion. I want to examine the sermon Peter and the apostles gave in Acts 5 with a view of showing its harmony with Peter's first gospel sermon in Acts 2 and thus the agreement in preaching the gospel among all the apostles including one yet to come--the apostle Paul--who will not be converted until chapter 9 in the book of Acts.

In Acts 5 we have the apostles arrested and imprisoned (Acts 5:17-18). That night while in prison an angel came to their rescue releasing them and instructing them to go to the temple and resume their teaching (Acts 5:19-20). This they did but once again were rearrested and brought before the high priest and the Jewish council (Acts 5:27).

Which of the apostles was the spokesperson for the group in Acts 5, we are not told, but the text says "then Peter and the other apostles answered" (Acts 5:29 NKJV), so we can be certain that all the apostles were in agreement, for the answer made is attributed to all of them.

The entire discourse as recorded follows: "But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.'" (Acts 5:29-32 NKJV)

Let us examine this sermon starting by talking about "obedience." As it relates to the gospel being preached, it is the last use of the word "obey" in this discourse that is of greatest interest in determining the gospel being preached. Who receives the Holy Spirit? It is "those who obey Him"--obey God, obey Jesus--as clearly stated in the text. The Hebrew writer says of Jesus, "He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)

Is obedience a part of the gospel? Did Peter preach obedience in his first gospel sermon, the first such sermon ever preached to mankind, in Acts 2? He commanded those that day to "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) This statement was made after the Holy Spirit had fallen on Peter (see Acts 2:4) and he was thus speaking by means of the Holy Spirit. Could you do what Peter asked those in that audience to do that day without being obedient? Of course not! Yes, Peter preached obedience on the Day of Pentecost just as he and the other apostles are doing this day in Acts 5.

They say the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32). One must obey God to have the Spirit. When Jesus returns it will be "in flaming fire taking vengeance…on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV) All the apostles were thus in agreement on the need for obedience and this would include Paul when he later became an apostle.

This was what Peter preached in his second gospel sermon recorded in Acts 3 as well when he quoted Moses, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'" (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV)

To "hear" does not just mean the physical act of hearing, but rather means to obey.

To obey meant to obey what? Well, it meant to obey all things the apostles spoke by the Holy Spirit. What was that as it related to gospel obedience, to making one a Christian? It included what Peter commanded in his Day of Pentecost sermon in Acts 2, preached by means of the Holy Spirit.

Some may be troubled by the fact that faith is not mentioned in that sermon (the Day of Pentecost sermon in Acts 2). My question is, does it have to be when it is clearly implied? For that matter, no mention of faith is made in this Acts 5 sermon either, but it is implied. Where is the man to be found capable of scriptural repentance who does not first believe? Where is the man who is willing to be obedient to baptism who does not first believe? Can a man be scripturally baptized who does not believe? No! When a thing is clearly implied in scripture, it does not need to be mentioned.

It is said that the Catholics baptize babies who cannot believe. Do they? Where does the Bible teach that sprinkling is baptism? Men made sprinkling baptism, not God. It became a tradition of men. In the New Testament, a man was baptized when he was buried in water. There was no other way to be baptized. Secondly, the Bible teaches, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) and not "he who is incapable of believing and is baptized will be saved." One comes from God; the other is a man-made doctrine. Besides, babies are pure in God's sight, sinless, and have no need of baptism.

In Acts 5:31, the apostles state that Jesus is the Savior who gives repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. How does he do that? Peter has preached this before, saying basically the same thing, simply phrasing it differently, in the Acts 2:38 passage. God gives man repentance by giving him motives to lead him to repent. One must first see his need for repentance, see his own sins so he will feel them in his heart, before he is capable of repenting of them.

In both the sermon in Acts 2 and this one in Acts 5, sin is pointed out--there is need of repentance. In Acts 2, Peter says, "you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" Jesus. (Acts 2:23 NKJV) In Acts 5 the apostles refer to those whom they are addressing as murderers (see Acts 5:30). In Acts 3:15, Peter says to the crowd gathered there that they "killed the Prince of life." (NKJV)

The point is that apostolic preaching dealt with sin and the need to repent. So, we see repentance was preached by the apostles. It was preached in Acts 5:31; it was preached in Acts 2:38; it was preached in Acts 3:19. Preaching the gospel always involved the subject of repentance from sin and always will, for that is a part of gospel obedience.

How did and how does Jesus give to man forgiveness of sins? We could say salvation is the gift of God and is by grace, and that would be true. But is there anything God has asked man to do before he will extend that grace to man and grant him forgiveness?

If you say no, then you have immediately rejected the need for both faith and repentance. If we believe faith is essential and if we believe repentance is essential, then we must admit man plays a role in his salvation despite it being a gift and we admit there are things man must do. In Acts 2, Peter said one of the things a man must do was be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Does Jesus give forgiveness of sins? Yes, but it is conditional. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) Most people want to make that read "he who believes and is baptized or is not baptized will be saved," but that is adding to the scripture and is not what Jesus taught but what man desires to teach.

Peter, by the Holy Spirit, speaking on the day of Pentecost, told penitent believers, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Some say yes, that is what the text says, but it is not what it means. Evidently, Peter did not know that, for years later he was still saying, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) If a man is saved, he is saved from sin and the only way that is accomplished is through God's forgiveness. Peter says baptism saves. He does not say baptism alone without faith or repentance.

There was no disagreement among the apostles when Peter first preached baptism for the remission of sins on the Day of Pentecost. All the apostles were in agreement with Peter's preaching. Jesus himself had taught them while still on earth that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) They had been commanded at the time Jesus ascended back into heaven to go make disciples and do what? Baptize them! (Matt. 28:19 NKJV) Which ones? Every single one of them with no exceptions. If you say no, then you are under obligation to tell us which ones were not to be baptized.

Just by coincidence, I am now reading a book entitled A History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Beginnings to 1500 by Kenneth Scott Latourette, copyright 1953, Revised Edition. (That was years ago when this article was first written.) This is a large book of nearly 700 pages by Mr. Latourette, who was Director of Graduate Studies at the Yale Divinity School at the time of his retirement in 1953. I want to quote from that book, for it bears directly on the subject at hand. "In its earlier days the Church maintained rigorous standards for its membership. As we have seen, baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered." (Page 138) He says of the Emperor Constantine that he "did not receive baptism until the latter part of his life…from the conviction, then general, that it washed away all previous sins." (Page 93)

People today do not want to believe that anyone at any time ever believed that baptism was God's means of washing away (spiritually speaking) the sins of man, but that will not change history or the teaching of the New Testament on the subject. The modern-day idea of salvation by faith alone came from the Middle Ages and not from the first, second, third, or fourth centuries or from the Bible.

In the same book, I quote again only this time of Augustine. "As a youth Augustine was given Christian instruction. His mother did not have him baptized because, accepting the belief that baptism washed away sins committed before it was administered, she wished him to defer it until after the heat of youth was passed and with it the excesses of that ardent age." (Page 96) Born in 354 AD, he was baptized on April 25, 387 AD.

In closing, I want to point out that thousands of people were saved by obeying the gospel before Paul ever became an apostle. Some would like to claim that Paul preached a grace that Peter did not. They desire two different gospels. Paul himself denied, as pointed out earlier in this piece, that there were two or more gospels. When one understands Paul's preaching correctly, he will find Peter's preaching also for both taught and preached the same gospel and that gospel had baptism in it for the remission of sins. It was the same gospel the 12 apostles put their stamp of approval on the Day of Pentecost. They put their stamp of approval on it, for the Holy Spirit gave it, and who were they to dispute the Spirit of God? Who are you and I to do so today?

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

 

Can One Be Just A Christian Without Being In A Denomination

 Many years ago I asked a lady this very question--can one be just a Christian in Christ's church without being in a denomination? Her answer was that while that was once possible it is not possible today. I have never understood that kind of thinking. To her the church that is Christ's could not exist today, in the modern era, alone by itself, outside of denominationalism. That is a position that raises all kinds of difficulties.

In the early years of Christianity, the gospel message when believed and obeyed made Christians and Christians only. They were added by God to the church, Christ's church. "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) If the pure gospel message of the New Testament will not do that today then when, where, and how did it lose its power to do so? Why must I today be in a denomination when all I want to be in is the Lord's church?

But it is said that the gospel still saves just like it did in the first century, still puts you in the Lord's church, but then after obeying it you must join a denomination. Why? They didn't in the first century. There were none to join, not then. Oh, it is said you join one for edification, fellowship, and joint evangelistic and benevolent efforts. So, is it being said that the first-century church lacked these things? Is it being said you cannot be in that church today for it does not exist as a stand-alone institution today? If it doesn't when did it die out as a stand-alone institution?

Does the gospel message now when believed and obeyed add you both to the church Jesus built and to a denomination simultaneously? If so, when did that begin? If so where can I read about it in the Bible? If so which denomination does it add me to in addition to the Lord's church? If so why is that needed now but was not needed for hundreds of years after the first century had come and gone? If so when did the gospel lose its power to make me just a Christian, no more, no less?

When did Jesus and the gospel begin to need help in the saving business? When did his church alone cease to be the body of the saved? "He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) The body is his spiritual body, his church, "He is the head of the body, the church." (Col. 1:18 NKJV) The Lord adds us to the church when we believe and obey the gospel (Acts 2:47). Paul says of Christians, "You are the body of Christ, and members individually." (1 Cor. 12:27 NKJV)

But it is now said that is not enough--if the lady was correct. Now to be saved you must also be a member of a denomination (the assumption being that all Christians are). So, you must be both in the Lord's church and a denomination to be saved, is that right? It is if the church Christ built is not sufficient by itself. But, most denominationalists would say it is not essential to be a member of their particular denomination to be saved, most any will do. Then please tell me what earthly or heavenly good that denomination serves other than to be a divider of men, one group of believers divided against another group of believers? If it is not essential to the salvation of men get rid of the thing that causes division separating brethren.

The truth is the church Jesus built does still exist on this earth today without the help of any denomination. The gospel has not lost its power. The church of Christ can exist anywhere in the world today when men and women are willing to forget just about everything they have been taught in denominationalism and just take the Bible alone as their guide.

Let us be honest. If we take the New Testament, the word of God alone, as our guide a lot of things will have to be given up. One does not read in his New Testament, as examples, sprinkling of infants, christenings, sprinkling of anyone at any age and calling it baptism (baptism is immersion), baptism for any purpose other than the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16), instruments of music being used in New Testament worship, dramas being performed, group musical performances, and a host of other things that have today become commonplace in denominational practices and worship services. Are those things right? You cannot read about them in your New Testament which raises the question of whether one needs a New Testament as a guide. Why if we are going outside it?

Nor will one read in his New Testament anything about one man rule of a congregation by a single individual designated as a pastor (each New Testament congregation had multiple pastors), oversight of a congregation by a national church organization, church-sponsored ball teams, raising funds by business ventures, seminars for everything from weight loss to how to do your taxes, and the list could go on. One must go outside the New Testament for those things.

No, if you want the New Testament church that Christ built a lot of things will have to go by the wayside and you will end up with nothing much that is attractive to worldly men. The worship service will not be like attending a rock concert or an entertainment event. It will be very simple--singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, prayers, partaking of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, the word of God will be preached, and a collection will be taken on the first day of the week to carry on the work of preaching the gospel and caring for the needy.

It is a hard transition from a denomination into the simple New Testament church that is led not by a single man or a national oversight organization but by a few select men who meet the biblical qualifications to be elders as found in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. These men have no authority to legislate for God. Their role is simply that of overseers to ensure that the work is done that God has given the church to do. These men will be chosen by the members of the congregation from among themselves. No one person designated a pastor by the denominational world will run the affairs of the congregation nor will a national organization.

The name on the sign out front will not matter as long as it is a scriptural designation. It could simply be called the church (for that is what it is), or the church of God, or the church of Christ, or any other scriptural designation. The name is more descriptive than it is an actual name.

You will not be voted into the membership. You cannot join this group of believers. Why not? Because God adds you when you obey the gospel. As I heard one man say recently, he had it right but I had never thought about it that way, you cannot join the church because you are adopted into it and God is the one who does the adopting.

Critics say that in the very act of organizing such a group you immediately become just another denomination. That goes along with the way they think for they do not want to leave denominationalism behind and thus insist one has to be a member of a denomination and cannot be just a Christian. They thus proclaim the Lord's church a denomination. If they admit we can have just the New Testament church on earth today and worship in it they condemn themselves and they are not about to do that so all they can do is shout and shout, over and over again, "denomination." They will label you and truth be thrust to the wind.

But what they are really saying, if they would think it through, is that God's word has lost its power to make just a Christian and lost its power to keep his church on earth today out in the open where it can be seen. They are saying that the seed, "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11 NKJV), produces a different crop today than what it did back in the first century. Back then it produced just Christians, now you plant it and you get both a Christian and a denominationalist. Strange seed this is that has undergone a transformation like no other seed in human history.

They are caught in a bind. On the one hand, they do not want to say you must be in a denomination to be saved but then on the other hand they want to insist you must because to them it is impossible to reestablish the New Testament church today and just have it alone. They want it both ways; they want to eat their cake and save it all at the same time. Life doesn't work that way. You cannot have it both ways. But, that is their problem, not mine.

I think most people who are serious about their religion see the great contradictions in denominationalism. However, they either do not know what to do about it or else their love for it is such that they will not give it up. I readily admit it is hard to start over but that is what must be done if we are going back to the church Jesus built.

Denominationalism will always have a greater appeal to man than the Lord's church for it allows more freedom of expression and gives man more say so in what is done and how it is done. Man has a desire for that. It has always been that way long before the church ever came into existence. Mankind wants to do things they want to do unhindered by God.

The concept of restoration of New Testament Christianity is a valid one and there are many churches of Christ in the land today still operating on the principle that it is possible to be just a Christian alone outside of denominationalism, just be a member of the church Jesus built, take the Bible and do what they did in the first century, that and that alone, and be just a Christian. Unless God's word has lost its power it is still possible to do that.

The church can be established in its New Testament purity in any area where men and women are willing to leave denominationalism and just take the Bible alone. It is not necessary to call it the church of Christ although no man should be hesitant to call the local congregation by that Christ-honoring name. Just give it a scriptural designation, organize it by what you read in your New Testament, accept members based on the way men were made members in the original church Christ built, worship as they worshiped, do the work they did, and leave all man-made inventions out of it.

To answer the question that was the title of this article, "Can One Be Just A Christian Without Being In A Denomination," the answer is yes if the desire is great enough to do so. But, be assured, those who love their denomination will have none of it. The Catholics are not the only ones who love their traditions. As the Apostle Paul said, "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Gal. 1:10 NKJV) We can please men (mankind) or we can please God. Pleasing men means denominationalism. We ought to choose to please God.

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

Emotions in Religion

A man is led in life either by his reason and rational thinking, or by his emotions—and that choice makes all the difference in the world. A life ruled by emotions is a life destined for disaster, a life where reason is always found in the back seat where it cannot be heard over the roar of the engine of emotion as it propels an individual down the road of life. 

When emotions rule your life, decisions are made on the basis of feelings, with minimal thought being given to truth or reality. We do not see because we do not look. We are not looking for fear we will see a truth we want no part of. Divorce courts, bankruptcy courts, drug rehab facilities, prisons, and even the local hospitals maintain a heavy business because emotion has ruled in way too many lives and reason took a back seat. 

We have the same thing in the Christian religion, but since Judgment Day has not yet arrived, we have not yet been forced to confront reality. We sometimes wonder why it is that a person cannot seem to see the truth. Well, you have to have a desire to see it and thus be looking for it to find it. “Seek and you shall find” (Matt. 7:7 NAS) is the rule; that is the way it works. But one only seeks when one has a desire to find, and if you are satisfied with what you have, little seeking will be done. 

We do not want to see a reason why we should not marry an individual we have fallen in love with. We do not see because we do not want to see. What was obvious to those looking in from the outside, whose emotions were not involved, is not just hidden from us, but willfully so. Down the road, we end up in a divorce. The same principle applies in Christianity as defined by the hundreds and hundreds of denominations. We see what we want to see if our religion is emotionally based, and eventually, if that is the case with us, it will lead us to disaster.

Truth and reason will always win out, given enough time. Emotion rules for a season, truth and reason for eternity. God’s word is truth (John 17:17). It does not matter how you feel emotionally about what He has said. It doesn’t matter whether or not you like it, or would like to see it changed or given a different twist than what it seems to have. Truth is not dependent upon how one feels about it. It stands on its own regardless of what the world thinks about it. I use the following as an illustration for a point I want to make.

Many who say they are Christians today want to see women given what they perceive to be a greater role in the church, but Paul said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12 NKJV). They say Paul’s prohibition was a cultural thing and thus relates only to that time when Paul lived, but Paul gives the reason for his command. He says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14 NKJV). If that was the reason for the command, and Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says it was, then it was not a cultural thing and is still binding today, for those historical facts can never be changed. 

Am I concerned with the role of women in the church in this article? No, but I am making a point using that issue as an example. Emotions lead us to desire a greater role for women in the leadership and assemblies of the church. It is not God’s word that does it. But mark this: if your religion is emotion-based, sooner or later you will have what you desire, no matter what the Bible says. With that being the case, many denominations now have women preaching and in leadership positions. Jesus said of God’s word that it was truth (John 17:17), but in emotion-based religion, truth must take a back seat and really does not matter, for emotion rules whatever the issue. 

An emotion-based religion is a religion that will in time no longer see the need for Bible authority. Nevertheless, they will still call themselves Christians. Paul said, in Col. 3:17, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (NKJV). It is a little hard to see how one can do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus has said nothing. 

To do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus means by His authority; thus, if He has not spoken on the matter, He has not given His authority. If as a student in a high school a teacher has given you authority, either a written word (a pass) or a spoken word, to leave class, you have authority to leave, but if not and you are found in the halls, you are in trouble. You acted without authority. So it is in Christianity, but why is it we are able to see the principle so readily in our daily life, but not in our religion? 

John says, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9 NAS). The side margin note in the NAS translation says the literal Greek behind the text “goes too far” is “goes on ahead.” To go ahead is to go beyond Christ’s teaching. 

Thus, in different words, John is saying the same thing Paul said in Col. 3:17. You cannot be doing as you please, adding to God’s word, taking from it, going outside the book of authority that you have—the teaching of Christ, the pages of the New Testament. 

But when emotions rule, scripture does not matter. We will do what we desire, word from God or no word from God, and we will say whatever it is we are doing is to God’s glory and pleasing to Him. Jesus said, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24 NAS). “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17 NAS). But we say by our actions it doesn’t matter, for our word is also truth as much as His word, and we convince ourselves of it.

We become God and make the rules by which we will live and worship. Truth, reason, and objectivity are tossed out the door while emotions (subjectivity in all its purity) are embraced. Many people will tell you today they no longer need scriptural authority in Christianity and that they are free to do as they see best, and that is exactly what they are doing. However, scripture is the only way God gives authority of any kind to man. 

I think one writer put it best several decades ago when he said, speaking of one religious body, they are ruled not by what the Bible says, but by what it does not say. If the Bible does not specifically say not to do a thing, they feel they are free to do as they please. It is emotion-based religion. It is a religion that does not live by a Bible. It is a worship of man and man’s desires. If we are to be ruled by what the Bible does not specifically condemn, by what the Bible does not say, then the door is wide open to all kinds of extra-biblical practices. We can do anything we please as long as we cannot find a “thou shalt not” for it in scripture. Theoretically, we could incorporate all kinds of dances, performances, and plays into our worship because the Bible has no “thou shalt not.” “The Bible does not say not to” becomes our ultimate guiding principle in our decision-making, which frees us up to do about anything the mind can devise. 

“This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:8-9 NAS). They would never admit to making commandments and would say it is a lie if you said they were doing so, but that is exactly what the scribes and Pharisees Jesus was addressing were doing. They had left the authority of scripture and had instituted their own ordinances. Why? Because it seemed right to them; it seemed okay.

We dream something up and we do it, and we say God is pleased, and not a word about the activity can be found in the Bible. We say it is okay, I do not mind. So what? What does that have to do with it? The question is, does God mind? We say no, because He knows we are doing it out of love for Him. The trouble with that is He said, through John the apostle, “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1 John 5:3 NAS). One of those commandments is that we worship Him in spirit and “in truth” (John 4:24).

I could probably not give a better Bible example of the destructive nature of emotions ruling in religion than the case of the Jews who refused to believe in Jesus. Their emotions ruled them, overrode all reason, and ended up destroying them. There was no reasoning with them. The miracles of Jesus were to them like water off a duck’s back. So Lazarus was raised from the dead. So what? But that is the mindset you get into when you are dealing with emotion-based (or should I say “emotion-ruled”) religion. You will never change a person whose religion is based on emotion, for reasoning with them is out of the question. They do not think with their minds. They live and function on their feelings.

Saul, who became the apostle Paul, was a perfect example. If Jesus had not directly intervened miraculously on the road to Damascus, it is exceedingly doubtful he would ever have been converted. He could take an active role in seeing people put to death without remorse, due to the hold his emotions held over him in his blind allegiance to Judaism (see Acts 26:10, Acts 23:1). Thankfully, all that changed after his conversion.

Stephen’s death at the hands of an emotional religious mob also comes to mind as another example. The mob was blinded by emotion.

Later on, Saul, now having become the apostle Paul, would say of the Jews, “They have a zeal for God” (Rom. 10:2 NAS), in reference to the Jewish nation. He would go on to say, “But not in accordance with knowledge” (Rom. 10:2 NAS).

We can learn from that passage if we will. We associate zeal with deep emotions. No one is zealous who does not have deep feelings. But according to this passage, which must rule—zeal or knowledge, the emotions or the mind? Which needs to be given top priority?

The reader should not misunderstand what I am saying in this article. I am not saying emotions in religion are bad. They are good. Man is an emotional creature. God made us that way. He, too, has emotions. (Did you ever hear anything in the Bible about grieving the Spirit or God being sorry He made man?) The central theme of this article is not that emotions are bad and the lack of emotions is good, but only that emotions cannot be the ruling force in the life of one who would live a Christian life pleasing to God and be saved in the end.

In speaking to Judah through Isaiah the prophet in Isaiah 1:18, the Lord said, “Come now, and let us reason together” (NKJV). That is what we ought to do and must do (use the head, not the emotions) if we are going to do God’s will and be saved on the last day.

There is always hope for man as long as there is a Bible, provided the man will go to the Bible and let it talk to him, versus the man talking to the Bible. Sometimes we just ought to shut up and listen, hear and heed; but you cannot do that with emotion-based religion, for it must speak and have its say.

Jeremiah, the prophet of old, said, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23 NKJV). That pretty much closes the door on any allowing of our emotions to rule our life as far as the word of God is concerned. There is, however, something outside man that can direct his steps. What is that? The word of God. Let us all allow it to do its work. If we do so, in the end we will reap an everlasting reward.

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

 

Christ Did Not Send Paul to Baptize

 [A note to the reader:  This article is similar to one I wrote entitled "Paul's Preaching at Corinth."  However, there is possibly a point or two in this one that was not in that one.]

Sometimes it is easy to misunderstand passages of scripture and especially so if we are getting all kinds of help doing so.  Because of Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 1:17 where he says, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (NKJV) some have been inclined to believe Paul felt baptism was not essential.  A careful reading of the context should make one reconsider.  Just four verses earlier Paul had asked the Corinthians to whom he was writing, "were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor. 1:13 NKJV)  Paul knew they had been baptized, in someone’s name, for if they had not been the question is nonsensical.  The Corinthians to whom he wrote were a baptized people.   

What is Paul saying in 1 Cor. 1:17?  Is he saying that Christ does not care whether or not disciples are baptized as some so believe?  Is he saying it is unimportant and makes no difference to one's salvation whether or not a person is baptized?  It is the purpose of this article to show the folly of taking that kind of stance based on this scripture.  

Let me begin by asking a question that must be answered if one is to take the position that baptism does not matter and that Paul was teaching that in this passage.  Here is the question--if it did not matter, if it has nothing to do with salvation, if Christ did not want Paul to baptize why did Paul baptize?  He says in verses 14 and 16 that he baptized Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas.  In Acts 19:1-7 Paul came to Ephesus and found 12 men there that had not been baptized properly and he baptized them.  Why?  Why if Paul felt it was unnecessary?  One also finds others who were baptized either by Paul or by a companion of his as a result of Paul's teaching on the subject--Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15), the Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:29-33).   

Why if Paul felt baptism was unnecessary did he teach baptism in Rom. 6:1-7, 1 Cor. 6:11, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 5:25-26, Col. 2:11-12, Titus 3:5, and, if Paul wrote Hebrews as many believe he did, in Heb. 10:22?  

If baptism does not matter and Paul did not care whether people were baptized or not then why was Paul baptized?  Was more required of Paul than anyone else in becoming a Christian?  The command to Paul by Ananias, a man sent directly by the Lord himself (see Acts 9:10-16) to Paul (at that time called Saul), was "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NKJV)

Most today, if they were to be consistent in what they teach, would have to tell you that Ananias was mistaken and could not possibly have meant what he said about Paul having sins to be washed away for they say a man is saved from his sins at the point of faith and thus Paul had no sins to be washed away so they know more about it than the man sent directly by the Lord himself to Paul.  They also would have to tell you, because they believe man has no part in his own salvation other than faith, there was nothing Paul could do to help himself contrary to what Ananias told him. 

One also has to ask another question if one is to interpret 1 Cor. 1:17 as teaching that baptism does not matter to Paul or to Christ.  Actually, two questions.  (1) Why was Paul, an apostle, exempt from the command Jesus gave to the other apostles just before his ascension to heaven in Matt. 28:19-20 where the command was, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"? (NKJV)

Was Paul some kind of special apostle who was exempted from this command to baptize?  Did the disciples made by Peter, John, and the other apostles have to be baptized but not those made by Paul?  I hope you do not believe that.  What Peter, John, and the other apostles were commanded to do Paul was also commanded to do or else he was not required to fulfill the Great Commission as they were and who believes that?

(2) Which disciple was it in Matt. 28:19-20 that Jesus said would not need to be baptized?  I might add the disciples that were made were to be taught "to observe all things I have commanded you" which was to go make disciples and baptize them.  Matthew 28:19-20 settles the matter of whether baptism is essential to salvation by itself, no other passage is needed unless, of course, one can deliberately disobey Jesus and still be saved.  But, there are many, many other passages teaching the same necessity of baptism as essential to salvation.

Paul in 1 Corinthians was writing to the church that he established there.  He says of it "I planted" (1 Cor. 3:6 NKJV); "I have laid the foundation" (1 Cor. 3:10 NKJV); "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15 NKJV). 

The record of the establishment of the church at Corinth is found in Acts chapter 18.  As a result of Paul's preaching the text says, "And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8 NKJV)  Were the converts Paul made left unbaptized because Paul thought it was unimportant and did not teach it?  Not according to this text.  He said in his letter to the church at Corinth he was not sent to baptize but it is certain he taught it or else how did the Corinthians learn about it and why were they baptized?  If Paul did not do the actual baptizing (and he did not do it according to 1 Cor. 1:17) then it is certain some of his helpers or assistants did on his behalf.

According to the Acts 18 account the Lord spoke to Paul telling him he had many people in Corinth (verse 10) and directing Paul to not hold his peace but to speak up in preaching the gospel (verse 9).  Paul spent 18 months in Corinth preaching (verse 11).

In 1 Cor. 6:11, after speaking of sins that will prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of God (verses 9 and 10), Paul says to the Corinthians, "And such were some of you.  But you were washed … ." (NKJV)  Now what kind of washing would it be that would make a difference in one's salvation (as this one clearly did)--that would cleanse one?  Might it not well be the same washing Paul had when he was baptized?  "Now why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV)  Yes, washing (baptism) makes a difference in that it spiritually speaking washes away sins in obedience to the command of God.

But, that is not all Paul has to say to the Corinthians on the subject of baptism.  In 1 Cor. 12:13 he says to them, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  That body, the only body that matters with regards to one's salvation, is the body of Christ of which he (Christ) is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Now read Paul's words carefully here.  He says "we were all baptized into one body."  The word "all" means every one of us, no exceptions.  How many disciples did Jesus say should be baptized back in Matt. 28:19?  None were to be exempted, not a single one.  In New Testament times there was no such thing as a Christian who had not been baptized.  That has not changed with time despite the howls and protests of many if not most.

Did Paul personally do a lot of baptizing in Corinth?  No!  Did he preach it and see that it was done?  Yes!  Why did he not do a lot of the baptizing himself?  The answer is he had those working with him who could and would do the work.

Just as Jesus is said to have made and baptized more disciples than John (John 4:1) and we then read in the next verse, "though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples" (John 4:2 NKJV) just, in the same manner, we can surmise that in Corinth though Paul himself actually baptized very few personally (1 Cor. 1:14-16) yet the work was done through helpers of his and through other preachers and teachers.  "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8 ESV)

Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel as an inspired man.  An uninspired man can baptize another but in the days before they had a written New Testament it took inspiration to preach the gospel and thus it is easy to understand why an inspired man's first duty would be to preach.  Such a man could always, or nearly always, find help to do the baptizing.  As already shown 1 Cor. 12:13 and Matt. 28:19 prove that every Christian at Corinth was baptized (see also again 1 Cor. 6:11).  

Paul most certainly did not mean that Christ sent him out into the world to preach that baptism was a non-essential and that none need to be baptized for it was Jesus himself who said, "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) and that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) and it was Paul who was commanded to "arise and be baptized" to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16 NKJV).  One can also read the passages Paul wrote on the subject of baptism listed but not discussed earlier in this article (Rom. 6:1-7, Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 5:25-26, Col. 2:11-12, Titus 3:5) to see Paul's teaching on the subject and the importance he placed on it.  

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