Unhappy With the Church of Christ

There are many misconceptions about the church of Christ, its membership, and what they believe. I am speaking of the church of Christ that you see advertised in your local community and on church bulletin boards out in front of the buildings they meet in. It is often said that the membership of the church of Christ is the people who think they are the only ones who are going to be saved. One wonders if people who make statements like that have ever read their Bible.

The Bible clearly teaches one must be a member of the church of Christ (the church either belongs to Christ or it doesn't—you tell me which). The church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18). Christ is "head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) If Christ is the Savior of the body, and the body is the church, and the church is his church, then please tell me how you are going to be saved outside his body, the church of Christ? It cannot be done. Jesus said, “I will build My church.” (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) If he did, it is his church, “the church of Christ. (see Rom. 16:16)

But it is said, “We mean the denominational church of Christ that exists today, the one that meets down the road. It is not the church of Christ of the Bible.” How do you know the church of Christ you see advertised today is a denomination? Are you like the lady who told me years ago it was impossible today to have the original church of Christ? It was once possible, but it is no longer possible; is that the idea? Many seem to think so. If they are right, then no one can be saved today because that would mean Jesus is the Savior of something that does not exist today. He would be the Savior of a body that no longer exists -- reread the Eph. 5:23 quote in the paragraph above. If it does not exist, you cannot be part of it and cannot be saved.

The lady's idea was that no matter what a body of believers was to believe and practice today, it would end up being no more than another denomination, for it is simply impossible in our day and age to have the original New Testament church. In the eyes of the world, including the eyes of what is generally called Christendom, even if your belief, practice, and terms of admission are identical to that taught and practiced in the New Testament all you end up with is another denomination. Denominationalism is dependent on that line of thought and cannot survive without it.

If it were admitted that the New Testament church in individual congregations could exist today, outside of denominationalism, it would destroy denominationalism, which is the thing that cannot be allowed to happen. If your faith and practice in your congregation were identical to that of the New Testament church, say the church in Jerusalem or Antioch of the first century, do not kid yourself into thinking that the denominations would admit it or accept it, for if they did so, it would mean their ruin. You would be in their eyes just another denomination because that is the way it has to be for them to survive, to justify their existence. However, denominational opposition to the New Testament church does not mean it cannot and does not exist on earth today.

All of this has been a lead-in to what I want to talk about in this article. Many are unhappy with the church of Christ, thinking it is far from what it ought to be. They think we, who are members of the church, are blind and cannot see the problems in the church. Folks, the history of the church as recorded in the New Testament shows the church has rarely been what it ought to be. There is nothing new today along that line.

Even in the original church of the New Testament, the church at Jerusalem, we find the Hellenist widows being neglected in the daily distribution of food (Acts 6:1). The Hebrew widows were being cared for, but not the Hellenist widows. Should this have been? Of course not! To their credit, the problem was quickly resolved but there should not have been a problem in the first place. A little later, we find two bold-faced deceivers in the church (Ananias and Sapphira). Even the model church had problems.

Who would even know where to begin in talking about the problems of the church at Corinth? The Holy Spirit himself speaking through Paul calls them carnal (1 Cor. 3:3). He speaks of envy, strife, and divisions among them (1 Cor. 3:3). They had in full fellowship a man living with his stepmother in a sexual relationship that Paul says not even the Gentiles (non-Christians) would tolerate (1 Cor. 5:1). They were suing one another in court (1 Cor. 6) which would certainly make for a loving church atmosphere would it not? Paul says, "No, you yourselves do wrong and defraud, and you do these things to your brethren!" (1 Cor. 6:8 NKJV) Then there was the way they were conducting the Lord's Supper, which was atrocious (1 Cor. 11:20-22). Paul said about that, "I do not praise you." (1 Cor. 11:22 NKJV)

Later in 2 Cor. 12:20-21 when Paul was planning another trip to Corinth he writes to them saying, "For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced." (2 Cor. 12:20-21 NKJV) Yes, there is no need to tell me the church is not what it ought to be today, for when has it been? It has not been very often and not in very many places, based on the historical record we have in the New Testament.

In reading the book of Galatians, it appears the churches there were ready to leave Christianity and go into Judaism. Paul starts the third chapter, "O foolish Galatians!" (Gal. 3:1 NKJV) He says, "I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Gal. 4:11 NKJV) "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4 NKJV) False doctrine was being perpetuated in the church of such a serious nature that if not countered would destroy it. Was there a problem in the church?

One can also see problems in the book of Hebrews. They were not progressing in the faith as they should have been. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food." (Heb. 5:12 NKJV) Some were forsaking the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25). They had need of endurance (Heb. 10:36). A careful reading of the book leaves one with the impression they were wavering, or were on the brink of it, and thus were being exhorted and encouraged to stiffen up and hang in there. This book was not written to a particular church, but it does show problems among the people that make up the church. You cannot get a perfect church without perfect people.

Among the seven churches of Asia we see a church that had "left your first love" (Ephesus, Rev. 2:4 NKJV), a church that had some in it who "hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality." (Pergamos, Rev. 2:14 NKJV) That same church, Pergamos, also had people in it "who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." (Rev. 2:15 NKJV) Would you say there was serious false doctrine in the church? Why was nothing being done about it? Would you say this church of Christ was what it ought to have been?

At the church at Thyatira, Jesus says they were allowing Jezebel, "who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile My servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols." (Rev. 2:20 NKJV) A lot of translations use the word "tolerate" rather than "allow," but the point is that the church was letting it go on. Can you imagine that?

Jesus described the church at Sardis as "dead" (Rev. 3:1), yet even so, there were a few in it that had "not defiled their garments" (Rev. 3:4) and would be saved. They all could be saved if they would repent, but that was a question yet to be resolved, whether or not they would do it. Finally, there was the church at Laodicea, which was the lukewarm church (Rev. 3:14-22). This was the church Jesus said he would spew out of his mouth (Rev. 3:16). They could not see (Rev. 3:18) and did not know their true state (Rev. 3:17), yet Jesus teaches they could even yet repent and be saved (Rev. 3:19).

One can see there have been very few congregations, even in New Testament times, that were what they ought to have been. The church at Philadelphia, Rev. 3:7-13, passed the test when the Lord (via means of John) wrote, and it seems nothing negative was said by Paul about the church at Philippi. But even in the church at Colosse, they were subjecting themselves to regulations (Col. 2:20-22) that were no part of the law of Christ but were in accord with "the commandments and doctrines of men." (Col. 2:22 NKJV) The church of the Thessalonians had those who were walking disorderly (2 Thess. 3:11). The church has always had problems and often very serious ones, and one can only wonder how long the church at Philadelphia and the church at Philippi remained free of problems.

Yes, people look at the church of Christ today that you see advertised, and because there are problems within it, the feeling is that it cannot be any better than any of the denominations or Catholicism. But here is the thing that makes the big, big difference. The one thing all the congregations I have discussed in this article had in common, along with the congregations of the church of Christ today, was that the membership understood what the true gospel was and believed and obeyed it, and thus were in a place where they could be saved individually if not collectively. That place was the church of Christ, his body, his church, that which he is the Savior of (Eph. 5:23). Not everyone in the church of Christ, first century or today, is saved. How one lives after gospel obedience does matter, and not all remain faithful or live the life.

The problem today is that the denominational world does not understand what gospel obedience is. As sincere as they may be, and I do not doubt them on that count, they do not and will not accept Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Until they are ready to accept and obey that clearly stated fact they remain outside the body of Christ which is what Christ is saving. One enters into the body of Christ by being baptized into it. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) We are baptized into Christ ("For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."—Gal. 3:27, NKJV), which is the same thing as being baptized into his body. Salvation is in Christ, not outside of him, and we are baptized into him. "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus…" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) Sins are only forgiven when one enters into Christ.

Many denominational people will eventually be immersed, but it is often for the wrong reason. We are not to be baptized to gain admission into some manmade denomination. If we do, what does that avail? Again, if I say I am saved before and without baptism, why bother with it at all, for your immersion will not be that which Peter preached or Paul preached? The baptism Peter preached (Acts 2:38) gave you remission of sins. The baptism Paul preached (see the prior paragraph, Rom. 6:3) put you in Christ where salvation is (see 2 Tim. 2:10), which is in reality the same thing Peter taught, but in different words.

I freely grant that everyone who has believed the gospel, repented of their sins, confessed Jesus, and was thereafter immersed "for the remission of sins" and did those things from the heart is in the church of Christ, even if his/her membership thereafter is in some denomination. That person is a Christian and was saved at the point of such obedience. However, as the Bible clearly teaches, we must, as Christians, follow God's commandments and walk in truth. Can that be done in a denomination?

I know of no denomination that does not use instrumental music in worship, but even secular history itself tells you it was no part of first-century Christian worship. There is no command for it, no example of it, and no authority for it in the New Testament. It is another manmade doctrine that prevents worshipping in truth (John 4:24). Is worshipping in error just as good as worshipping in truth with God? "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV) Does the word "must" mean anything? Does it mean a man is free to worship as he pleases? Does the word "truth" have any importance, or does it mean freedom of choice?

I know we have problems in the church and I have known it for a long, long time. Our teaching and preaching often leave a lot to be desired. In many ways, we are tradition-bound in matters of indifference, preferring to live in the mid-twentieth century rather than the twenty-first century. Check the copyright dates on the songs we sing if you think otherwise, and I have nothing against old hymns, but I am just saying.

However, if one is unhappy with the church of Christ, they must ask themselves, what is the alternative? There is no other place to go. It is as Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” (John 6:68 NKJV)

(1) If you step out of the church of Christ into denominationalism, then you step out of the Lord’s church into a manmade church where Jesus never promised salvation. All of the denominations came into existence generations after Christ established his church.

(2) You then give your support, participation, and funds to encourage the false doctrine they teach that you don't need to be baptized for the remission of sins, denying what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost.

(3) You become a supporter of the idea that truth doesn't matter--you can be saved anywhere in any denomination, they generally all teach that, even if they are all in disagreement on doctrine. You become a proponent of the idea that error is as good as truth since they all differ on doctrine. If one can be saved in error, then truth simply no longer matters.

(4) You accept the idea that how one worships is a matter of personal choice. You become one who is willing to cross the words "must" and "truth" out of the John 4:24 passage, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV)

There was a time in Jesus' ministry when many of his disciples left him because of his teaching. Jesus then said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:67 NKJV) Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68 NKJV) I feel much that way about the Lord's church. Sure, there are problems, but where does one go if not there, for it is the body of Christ of which he is the Savior? Why would I step out of that body into a body created by man, of which Christ is not the Savior? Why would I do that? Why would you do that? Would it be to keep peace, to keep men happy? Does it make sense to try and please men over God? I think not.

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

The Great Commission and Cornelius

Many people believe that Cornelius was saved the moment the Holy Spirit fell on him. I disagree. The account of his conversion is recorded in Acts 10. It is a topic worthy of discussion.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household before their baptism (Acts 10:47). At its core the issue is whether or not water baptism is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38 and many other passages (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, John 3:5, Mark 16:16). Or, is there some other way way God has designed for man to receive remission of his transgressions?

I want to address something I had overlooked until I was doing some reading where it was brought to my attention. In his preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter said in Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) In the very next verse (verse 44), we are told that "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." (Acts 10:44 NKJV)

I want you to take a closer look at verse 43, three words there that I had overlooked. What were they? The words "through His name." It was pointed out to me that words do have meanings and they are not just written to take up space. "Through His name, whoever believes in Him will have remission of sins." (Acts 10:43 NKJV)

Here is the point: the phrase "through His name" designates a relationship with the name. Meaning what? For that, we have to go back to the Great Commission Jesus gave himself in Matt. 28:18-20. Let me quote that:

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 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.' Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Here is something the reader may not be aware of, a thing easily overlooked. Do you know the word translated "in," where it says "in the name," should correctly be translated by the word "into?" That is to say, the Greek means "into." If you do not believe that, check it out for yourself by getting a New American Standard original edition reference Bible and check the side margin or center column references. If you do not have one, here is what you will find: the exact words, "Lit., into". Lit. means literal, meaning "into" is the literal translation. The original American Standard translation of 1901 used the word "into" in the text itself, as does the more recent Literal Translation of the Bible.

So what is the big deal as I do not want to lose your attention by doing mere word studies? Jesus is teaching that when we are baptized in water, as per Acts 2:38, we are being baptized into a relationship not only with him but also with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Does this comport with other scriptures? Yes, it does. Here are some passages that do not just teach that we are baptized into Christ but specifically state it. (I add that no one doubts that the baptism of the Great Commission is water baptism since man is directed to perform it.)

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) Gal. 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (NKJV) One gets into Christ by water baptism.

Please note what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:13, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (NKJV) Do you know that the word "in" here should be the word "into"? Again, check it out using the references I have already alluded to. The Corinthians were not being baptized into a relationship with Paul, or any other man, but with Christ, and he wanted them to know that.

I think it goes without saying that all agree the Christian has a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures also teach the same relationship with the Father and Jesus. Hear Jesus, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (is baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, a part of the word?--DS); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14:23 NKJV) Jesus again speaks in John 17:20-21, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (NKJV) See also Rom. 8:9-11.

The point I am trying to make is that when we are baptized according to Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, we are put into that relationship with him where he dwells within us, as does the Father, and the Holy Spirit--we in them, they in us. In voluntarily coming into this relationship, we are willingly and gladly bringing ourselves into submission to their authority and receive all the blessings that go along with that.

That the baptism of the Great Commission was water baptism goes without saying, as the command was made to men to do this. Only God, not man, can baptize one in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, those they taught and baptized were to go out and do the same thing ("teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Matt. 28:20 NKJV) and that perpetually down through time. This is the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5 and the baptism that establishes a relationship with Christ.

Now, let us make the application to the case of Cornelius. I quote again Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) So here is the argument. That which we are to receive through his name (remission of sins) is a little hard to receive, is it not, unless and until we have some relationship with that name (with him)? That relationship is granted via way of obedience to the Great Commission, wherein we are baptized into a relationship with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

But, there is more. What did the Great Commission of Jesus in Matt. 28 demand of a man? Two things--faith and baptism. (Matt. 28:19) Disciples were first to be made, from which it is evident that believers were to be made, and then they were to be baptized. Mark 16:16 makes it even clearer. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) I have said before and say again, the problem with denominational teaching on this subject is that the import of what they teach is the same as if Mark 16:16 read, "He who believes and is not baptized will be saved," for they say it is not essential. I believe Jesus' words are clear.

Do I think it was certain that Cornelius would be saved prior to his baptism? If we are talking about God’s foreknowledge, yes, absolutely, just as much as the faithful Old Testament prophets were who were given the Holy Spirit, but neither were saved without the blood of Jesus which we come into contact with via baptism in our dispensation of time, the Christian dispensation. Paul says we are baptized into Christ's death, which is where he shed his blood, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom 6:3 NKJV)

Now, would God place his spirit upon one not yet in a saved condition? He could; none of us would deny his power to do so. Would he do it? Who is to say he would not if he had a purpose in doing so? Might there be a purpose here? What?

The gospel was not being taken to the Gentiles as God intended. Some say as much as 10 years had transpired between that first sermon on the Day of Pentecost and Peter going to Cornelius, a Gentile. Even with Peter, an inspired apostle, it took a direct intervention from God himself to convince him he needed to go and talk with a Gentile about salvation. And, as all Bible students know, he took flak for it from the Jews back in Jerusalem and had to defend himself. What convinced those Jews that it was acceptable? Peter's recounting the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Would they ever have gone on their own to the Gentiles had this not happened?

When God has a purpose, he may give His Spirit to even a vile sinner. Certainly, I do not place Cornelius in any such class, but I do know he needed the blood of Jesus. But, what I have reference to here is the case of one so vile he was a ring leader in the death of Jesus--Caiaphas.

The Bible says, "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation." (John 11:49-51 NKJV)

Do I think the Holy Spirit remained with Caiaphas? Of course not. But, for a short period of time, because God had a purpose, it was given to him. God had a purpose in giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his household. He accomplished that purpose. The Holy Spirit was not given to Cornelius to save him, nor was it given to him because he was already saved. Like everyone else, Cornelius had to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, and that included being baptized for the remission of sins, or as Jesus put it, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) He did not say “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” as so many seem to proclaim.

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

 

The Conscience as a Witness

A person can run from many things but one thing that cannot be run from is one’s own conscience. Wherever a person goes their conscience follows as closely as their shadow. It is a constant companion. It is an individual’s witness to himself and to God of his character as it relates to his willingness or unwillingness to abide in what he considers to be that which is right and good.

The conscience cannot be a person’s perfect guide, for it, like man's intellect, must be properly trained to be useful. Throughout history men have committed atrocities in all good conscience against others. Men have burned other men at the stake, slit the throats of others, sacrificed their children as burnt offerings, committed genocide, all in good conscience because the conscience was misinformed and untaught in righteousness.

Just because one has been taught from childhood that a thing is right, and has accepted it as fact, does not mean there is truth in the doctrine one was taught and came to believe. A conscience can be trained in sin and error just as easily as in righteousness, for the conscience itself is unable to determine truth from error. It acts like a computer in the sense that it can do no more nor less than what it has been programmed to do. It judges based on its training.

Sometimes, consciences need to be reprogrammed. If a person is in religious error, say as an example a militant Islamist who believes murder and terrorism is God's will, his conscience needs to be retrained and educated in righteousness.

The only trustworthy guide man has to live by is not his conscience but God's word. The Psalmist said, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105 NKJV) Man is to walk in (live by) God's word. Jeremiah, under inspiration, wrote, "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) If it were in man to direct his own steps then conscience might well be a suitable guide, but that is not what the scriptures teach.

Mankind’s guide needs to be what the word of God says, for only God knows what is perfect in goodness, holiness, and righteousness. Jesus said to the devil, but it applies to all, for it remains true, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matt. 4:4 NKJV) This was originally written in Deut. 8:3, by Moses, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and remains an eternal truth as long as the earth shall stand.

If it is said men have used scripture, God’s word, to commit atrocities, it is not scripture that led them to that. For example, where in your New Testament do you read of a commandment to burn men at the stake for heresy as was done in the Middle Ages? Christianity properly taught teaches love your neighbor as yourself. It never condones the mistreatment of another.

No, we cannot ignore our conscience. I do not argue that we can, for we cannot. I only argue that our conscience must be trained by the word of God as found in the New Testament, God's law for man today, and that we may need to retrain our conscience to bring it into accord with that word.

Saul, who was to become the apostle Paul, had to retrain his conscience when he met up with Jesus on the road to Damascus. His conversion experience (read about it in Acts 9, 22, and 26) immediately convinced him that the things he used to believe and by which his conscience had been guided were error and so he turned from them. Many today need to turn from their religious error which their conscience condones because it has been improperly trained.

The key to such a change is to be fully persuaded. One can change without violating one's conscience when fully persuaded like Paul was. No one can advocate violating one's conscience when not fully persuaded for that in itself would be sin. "Whatever is not from faith is sin." (Rom. 14:23 NKJV) We need to read and study God's word with an open mind and heart and be willing to accept whatever we find written there, even if it goes against what we have believed previously.

The conscience gives witness to the kind of heart we have and God reads man's heart (Acts 15:8, Jer. 17:10). It is only the pure in heart who will see God (Matt. 5:8). The conscience is a part of the heart (a part, not all). In John 8, we have Jesus being confronted by those who have brought a woman to him caught in the act of adultery. They are trying Jesus, attempting to put him in a tight spot, but he turns the table on them and says to them that whoever is among you without sin cast the first stone at her (John 8:7). The Bible then says, "Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one." (John 8:9 NKJV) What was convicting them? Their conscience, yes, but the conscience was the heart. Their hearts were pricking them.

We find the same thing on the Day of Pentecost when Peter preached the first gospel sermon and the first converts under the Christian dispensation were made. Peter preached to them in a way to convince them that not only was Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, but that they were guilty of putting him to death (Acts 2:23,36). The Bible says when they heard this, "they were cut to the heart." (Acts 2:37 NKJV) Their conscience was made to feel the guilt of sin. Until a man's conscience is greatly bothered by sin, and he must be made to feel sin's guilt for that to happen, he will not and cannot repent and be saved.

A guilty conscience is a blessing if a man will allow it and will heed its call and repent. The conscience is a witness to a man about the state of his heart. Thank God if you have a conscience that is not so hardened by sin that it does not bother you when you do wrong. Thank God it still works and is not seared.

The Bible tells us that the conscience can become seared. It speaks of those who speak lies in hypocrisy "having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1 Tim. 4:2 NKJV) If one continues to ignore their conscience, overriding its decision and doing what their conscience is telling them is wrong, eventually the conscience will cease to have any control over them. Sinning becomes easier and easier until finally it no longer bothers one at all. The conscience has been seared.

I do not want to be misunderstood. It is never too late to repent and turn one’s life around, even if one has been caught up in a sin that seems to have enslaved him or her. What is being said is that it becomes easier and easier to continue in sin the more and the longer one continues to ignore and/or override a properly trained conscience. The ultimate end if one continues on down that road is no conscience at all. That is a scary, scary thought. As long as your conscience is bothering you, there is hope of repentance. The great fear is that of coming to the point where the conscience no longer pricks one at all.

The conscience is indeed a witness of the heart, and it will either accuse us or else excuse us. In Rom. 2:15, Paul speaks of the Gentiles who did not have the Law of Moses during that Old Testament dispensation of time and says in part of them, "who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them." (NKJV) The conscience gives rise to those thoughts for good or ill, depending on how we have reacted to what we deemed to be right, thus bringing either peace of mind or the burden of guilt.

Our conscience tells us about the state of our heart. When I see myself in my heart (my conscience making that possible), going off in the wrong direction, I need to act on that and turn again to righteousness. Conscience talks to us and, if properly trained, prompts us to turn around and return to God.

In Rom. 9:1, Paul spoke of his conscience "bearing me witness" meaning, in his case, his conscience was confirming the truthfulness of what he was writing. When we live the truth and tell the truth, our conscience becomes a character witness on our behalf. Men may not be able to read our conscience, but God can, and we know our conscience and thus are given confidence by its approval.

In 2 Cor. 1:12, Paul speaks of the "testimony of our conscience" thus the conscience bears testimony. When it bears good testimony to us, we have peace and confidence, hope and faith.

I want to close with one last verse, 1 Peter 2:19, "For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully." (NKJV) Our hearts ought to be so tender towards God that we are willing to endure all wrong to maintain a good witness of our conscience before God.

Not everything can be bought with gold. Some things, in fact, many things, are of more value than gold. Things like a good name, good character, a good hope, love, faith, forgiveness, and a good conscience toward God. You can take these things with you when you die. These are the things that matter.  

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

Apollos and Baptism

There are many mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know more about than we do with Apollos, the eloquent evangelist, ranking near the top among such New Testament characters. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. What makes Apollos mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus, knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God" explained to him.

It is relatively certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there, and the church leaders, knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he, in close association with them, would have soon learned the difference himself. It is thus highly probable that Apollos had never been in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, if ever.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge on him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know, for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation, denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental doctrine. Being well acquainted with Paul, who had lived with them for a time and with whom they had traveled, they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher, you must teach the truth. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila. He had already been baptized with John's baptism, which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted, they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses, but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven, they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism, and so Apollos, having been baptized once with John's baptism, did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began, it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples, they were cleansed, for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? When your sins have been remitted, they are remitted. Yes, remission at that point in time looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross, which was yet to come, but they were assured of the remission of their sins, having believed and obeyed what they had been taught, including baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism, nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do, you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally, was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach, we know they were not of that camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector, but even so, if you read Luke 7:29, you will see that tax collectors were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos, beginning in Acts 19:1, we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed from there and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos, and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1, that Paul found there "some disciples," referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit, Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now, why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19 is "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38), which they should have known about.

Now, here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized too, but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time, starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the time of either his imprisonment, death, or the day of Pentecost, when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. This was a short period of time of maybe a year or two, approximately, when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized, he was saved, having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time. John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

The twelve men at Ephesus would have been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost, when the baptism authorized by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter, anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. John’s baptism looked forward to Christ's death, while that of Jesus looked back.

In closing, I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts regarding salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1), and yet were not baptized. Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into"-- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Mat 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple will be baptized, for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before one can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning about Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these twelve men at Ephesus and baptize them?

Here is the clincher-- why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? Remember, he says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2, Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then, in verse 3, immediately following, he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life. Paul tied belief and baptism together. Do you?

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