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.]

Who is the Believer in John 3:16

Sometimes things that are the most obvious are also the easiest to overlook. No passage in the Bible is better known nor been memorized more than Jesus' statement in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJV) This was part of a conversation Jesus was having with a man named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews who came to Jesus by night confessing that Jesus had to be a teacher from God because of the miracles he had been doing. "No one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." (John 3:2 NKJV) The reader would do well to open his Bible to John 3 and if you have a red-letter edition all the better. You can readily see this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus runs from John 3:1-21.

John 3:16 has given comfort to many, self included, as it should. It clearly teaches, for it clearly states, that the believer in Jesus will have eternal life. But, unfortunately, this is a verse that has been isolated not only from the rest of the teaching of the New Testament but even ripped from its immediate context and thus made to mean what men desire it to mean versus what it teaches when taken in context.

Who is this person who will have everlasting life? Who is this believer? Is it not the same person who will see the kingdom of heaven if he is "born again" in verse 3 and who will enter the kingdom of God if he is "born of water and the Spirit" in verse 5? Most certainly! It is all the same conversation directed at the same man, the man Nicodemus.

The believer of John 3:16 is the man who is born again (verse 3), the man who is born of water and the Spirit (verse 5). If this is not the same man, the man of John 3:16 and the man of John 3:3,5, then we have Jesus contradicting himself and teaching one is going to be saved one way in the earlier verses and another way in the later verse, all in the same conversation with the same man. Surely, all can see Jesus is talking about the same individual.

This makes the believer of John 3:16, who will be saved, a baptized person. The person who is born again, born of water and the Spirit, is the person who led by the Spirit came to a belief so strong as to lead him to be baptized (which is the water of John 3:5). As Jesus taught elsewhere, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

Who is the person who does not believe? It is the person who will not be baptized. He is the person who does not believe Jesus when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." He is the person who does not believe one must be born again of water and the Spirit. Of the Spirit, yes, he believes that, but does not believe water is necessary.

One cannot be a believer in Jesus while not believing Jesus. You do not believe Jesus if part of his word is no good to you and you reject it. The believer in Jesus is the man who takes Jesus at his word--yes, all his word. In this very same chapter there is another verse confirming this very thing. Note John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (NKJV) The phrase "does not believe the Son" means just that-- does not believe what Jesus says. That man shall not be saved. That man does not believe in Jesus even though he may proclaim his faith day and night.

The phrase "does not believe the Son" is in some translations translated differently, by the words "does not obey the Son" (NAS, ESV). Why? The Greek behind both translations is the word "apeitheo." Thayer, famous for his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says this word means "to not allow one's self to be persuaded." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says it means, "to refuse to be persuaded, to refuse belief, to be disobedient." (page 311) Adam Clarke, the well-known Bible commentator, says the person being spoken of in this verse is "The person who will not be persuaded, in consequence, does not believe; and, not having believed, he cannot obey." This seems to be the consensus meaning of the Greek. It is a person who does not believe and thus cannot obey because of his unbelief. One can see then how either translation would be acceptable, "does not believe" as in the NKJV or "does not obey" as in the NAS and ESV. The NAS reference edition admits as much for in its side margin notes it has "Or, believe" even though it translates in the text itself "does not obey."

So, what do we learn from John 3:36? Simple! To believe in the Son for salvation (as per John 3:16) means one believes the Son enough to be persuaded by him to obey what he says. So we see again, looking at it from the perspective of another verse in the same chapter, that it is he who is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5 NKJV) who will "enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) for that is the man who is persuaded enough by the words of Jesus to obey him because he believes him. This is the man who believes in Him so that he should not perish but have everlasting life.

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

 

The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its relationship with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I encourage the reader to compare this passage, as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted, with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what is being said.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy, and we are justified by his grace. To be saved is to be justified. If you are not justified, you are not saved. But is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is defined, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1994, "1: formed or created again 2: spiritually reborn or converted." Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind the words of Jesus in John 3. Jesus says, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) What Paul taught in Titus 3:4-7 Jesus had already taught in John 3:3-5.

The word washed or washing is a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins that people get caught up in, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And 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) The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus-- Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that, but if we will be honest, he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means, and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version both say, “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5 ESV) rather than “through” which the NKJV uses. It is all one and the same.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thought only--that salvation is all God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. It is basically unconditional on man’s part. My mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning. Noah is a case in point.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood, but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not mean the thing required of him is a work that merits or earns salvation.

Noah had to build an ark to be saved because God required it, but it was not wood and pitch in the form of a ship and hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest. It was God’s grace that told Noah beforehand what was coming, the flood, and how to save himself. God’s grace saved Noah, but not without effort on Noah’s part. That effort consisted of believing and obeying. It is the same for you and me today.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man was ever saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact that God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse we read it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works, and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was Noah’s ark building. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now, let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just like Noah. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word, God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the Titus 3:5 passage that Paul says "he saved us." When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves by our own power or by our own works. Without God baptism means nothing. Noah built the ark, but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. God could have sunk the ark at any point in time even after it floated. You and I are baptized, but that does not mean we saved ourselves. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 students. Sometime back, I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance, one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God." This had reference to the early years of Christianity.

The quote was taken from the textbook World History by Prentice Hall, written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year the book was put out was 2010. The reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that, I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it.

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential. I also add that this article was written originally years ago even though I am just now posting it. It was revised but very little.) 

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

Without Natural Affection and Covenantbreakers

Most of us prefer a version of the Bible today that is more modern in its language than the original American Standard Version of 1901 or the King James Version, thus making the Bible easier to read and understand. However, in a few passages scattered about the Bible, the new literal translations like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV, all excellent translations taken as a whole, have, in my opinion, given us inferior translations in an attempt to make reading easier for us.

One such example is found in Rom. 1:31. In Romans 1, Paul, toward the middle of the chapter, begins to talk about the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (v. 18) and then in the last few verses lists a series of sins into which mankind had fallen. Verse 31 is a part of this listing and reads in its entirety as follows, “undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.” (NKJV)

However, read this same verse from the King James Version and it reads as follows, “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” The ASV of 1901 reads the same as the KJV except that it omits the word “implacable.”

Here is a case where both of these older translations are more accurate to my mind than any of the newer ones, more accurate in exactness of the meaning of the original Greek words behind the English words untrustworthy (NKJV) and unloving (NKJV). That is to say, covenantbreakers is a better translation than untrustworthy, and without natural affection is a better translation than unloving.

For covenantbreakers (it is one word in the KJV), the ESV and the NIV have "faithless," the NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have "untrustworthy." These words are close enough that you can see where modern-day translators were coming from, but they still stray in my mind from the exact intent of the original. The original is not referring to general untrustworthiness but specific untrustworthiness in breaking a covenant one has made with another. I may be wrong, as I am not a Greek scholar, and modern scholarship seems to say I am, but if you go back in time, translators thought covenantbreakers was the best translation. Let each do their own study.

Hear the words of Malachi 2:13-16, and for this I will use the NKJV because it reads easier and is still accurate. “And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so he does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did he not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ‘For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’”

When a man and woman marry, they make a solemn covenant between each other and God. To break that covenant would be exactly what the Greek word used in Rom. 1:31 is talking about. But there is more. How many times in reading the Old Testament do you run across the word covenant in connection with covenants God made with his people and them with him? How many times did his people break those covenants?

I did a quick e-sword search on the NKJV concordance for the word covenant in the New Testament, and the word popped up 31 times in 28 total verses. The New Testament is sometimes called the New Covenant (it is listed as that on the title page of the copy I have of the original American Standard Version of 1901).

As Christians, we have entered into a covenant relationship with God. When Jesus died on the cross and we come to accept him as Lord, Savior, and King of our lives by gospel obedience, we have entered into a covenant relationship with him. Remember his words, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)

Paul spoke of himself and his cohorts as “ministers of the new covenant.” (1 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) “Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 722 NKJV) says the Hebrew writer. It is said to be a “better covenant” than that which was under the Law of Moses with better promises (Heb. 8:6). To be a covenantbreaker, whether between husband and wife or a Christian and his God, is a serious matter.

“Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing…,” says the Hebrew writer (Heb. 10:29 NKJV). We must be as good as our word, and if we are not, we need to repent and get to being that good. This easy covenant breaking we have today is not going to get it with God, whether the covenant we are breaking is with our wife or husband or with God.

Am I saying modern-day translations have it wrong? I am told by Claude, the A.I., that modern scholars think the original is broader than just the breaking of covenants. Here is a quote from it, “The shift from ‘covenantbreakers’ to ‘faithless’ in modern translations reflects a more contemporary understanding of the Greek term's broader meaning - it encompasses not just breaking formal covenants or treaties, but being generally untrustworthy, unreliable, or lacking in faithfulness to commitments and relationships.”

ChatGPT, the A.I., says, “the Greek ἀσύνθετος literally means ‘not keeping agreements’ but broadly conveys faithless/treacherous/untrustworthy, which explains why newer translations expand or modernize the wording.”

Certainly, a covenantbreaker would be faithless and untrustworthy so I can see that. However, here is a case for me where I find it hard to discern between translation and commentary, which is which.

The other phrase I want to talk about from Rom. 1:31 is the words, “without natural affection.” In the ESV and the NIV, the Greek is translated by one word, the word “heartless.” The NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have “unloving.” I think you will find the old King James Version has it correct as to the exact meaning of the Greek. A person might be heartless and unloving in general and still not be “without natural affection.”

Vine’s, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, a standard work that Bible students consult regularly to see what the original Greek behind the English word means, says this, “signifies without natural affection…love of kindred, especially of parents for children and children for parents.” The Greek word is “astorgos.”

An example of natural affection is found in the story of the two women (harlots) who, while living together, gave birth to sons 3 days apart. The one woman lay on her son in the night, killing him by accident. She then claimed the other woman’s son as her own. The matter was taken before King Solomon, who heard both women claiming the boy as their own. In his wisdom, King Solomon proposed to have the son killed by the sword and both women given a half, knowing the real mother would be willing to give up the child to have his life spared. Natural affection led to this very result, with the real mother pleading for the life of the son, willing to give him up to the other woman to save his life. “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” (1 Kings 3:26 NKJV)

What is natural affection if it is not God given, natural, by nature? It is hard for most of us to understand how this can be, that one would not have natural affection, and yet Paul says some have this sin in their life. In writing Romans 1, he includes it with a long list of many sins about which he says in closing, “that those who practice such things are worthy of death.” (Rom. 1:32 NKJV) We read in the Old Testament of some offering their babies up for burnt sacrifices. In 2 Kings 17, one reads of the sins that caused God to allow Israel to be carried away into captivity. One of these sins was that “they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire.” (2 Kings 17:17 NKJV) This was a sin associated with the worship of idols.

Manasseh, the king of Judah, became guilty of the same thing: “he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.” (2 Chron. 33:6 NKJV) God, in the book of Jeremiah, said, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my heart.” (Jer. 7:31 NKJV)

This shows the depth and degree to which men can sink when they get involved with false doctrine. Radical Islam comes to mind, where men can slit a man’s throat with a knife, the burning of Christians at the stake, etc.

However, it can work the other way as well, children against their parents. Almost every Bible reader is acquainted with the attempt by David’s son Absalom to overthrow him. One can read about Absalom’s revolt beginning in 2 Sam. 15, and every indication is that David felt Absalom would put him to death if he had the opportunity.

Many years later, Jesus spoke of a time when “brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.” (Mark 13:12 NKJV) From time to time, we read or hear in the news of children abusing their aged parents. In fact, Jesus talked about this very thing, although not speaking of physical abuse, in Matt. 15. He accused the scribes and Pharisees of not honoring their parents, not being willing to help them (Matt. 15:1-6).

Yes, these are all extreme cases, but if men can fall into the depths of sin to the degree they are willing to do these things, then certainly there is such a thing as a lack of natural affection, which none can deny. The lack of natural affection can manifest itself in many ways. But in whatever way it manifests itself, the sin of the heart remains the same. The sin of lacking natural affection is simply the sin of not loving. Perhaps this is the reason some of the modern translations use the word “unloving” in their translations.

“For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” (1 John 3:11 NKJV) “He who does not love his brother abides in death.” (1 John 3:14 NKJV) One would do well to read the book of 1 John where the word love is used 36 times in the New King James Version.

If one lacks natural affection, it is not something we are incapable of doing anything about. All sin begins in the heart, unless one is talking about sins of ignorance. If the Bible teaches anything at all, it teaches that men and their hearts can be changed. Saul had a hand in seeing Christians put to death (Acts 26:10), but God and his word changed him into the apostle Paul. Paul said there was a reason for that--that he might be an example.

I use the New Living Translation here, not because I think it is the most accurate translation of the passage, but because I think, as a commentary, it has hit the nail on the head of what the verse teaches. I refer to 1 Tim. 1:16 where Paul says, “But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.” (NLT)

It is not a matter of saying I was born without natural affection; what can I do? We are the way we are because of the attitudes we have developed over time. Saul was not loving toward those families he tore apart, casting a mother, a dad, a son, or a daughter into prison and possibly seeing them put to death depending on the case. Even so, he became a changed man.

The apostle John reached a point where he no longer had any desire to have fire called down from heaven to consume those who rejected them (Luke 9:54), but given a lifetime came to be known to us today as the apostle of love.

Those 3,000 converted on the day of Pentecost who yelled for the Son of God to be put to death had their hearts changed from hatred and murder to love and compassion. Christ can change us. It all comes down to a matter of our wills. Do we want to be known as the man or woman who lacked natural affection or the man or woman who loved his or her family? It is a matter of personal choice just as much as salvation is. Natural affection goes with salvation as much as the lack of it goes with condemnation.

Love is a choice. That cannot be emphasized too much. Love is a choice, and remember, we are talking about natural affection. When you begin to love rather than hate, you will find life to be much happier. Where do you begin? You begin from within, within your heart. You begin with your will. God can change your heart, your life, but you have to want it first. When you want it, you will begin seeking it, and when you seek, you shall find (Matt. 7:8). 

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