The Spirit of Christ and Liberalism

As a result of an article I wrote in the past, I was accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage, and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied that I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ.

There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of sin and righteousness. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30).

It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him, love him, and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway, and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really!

Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore, in the next few verses, he warns those cities of what lies ahead on the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example, he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum, which he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV)

When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach, what were they sent to preach? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state, unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father.

In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts, by Peter's preaching, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens, Luke records Paul's preaching there, saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV)

But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you can live a life based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe.

For them to be right about Paul, several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17).

(2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles, recorded by Luke, then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history, then what about the book of Luke itself? Why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books.

(3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit, then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ, his detractors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles, as well as Peter's and all of Paul's, and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How?

Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John, how can we believe the things John wrote, for he might have been deceived about those things as well.

Furthermore, if this James, who is mentioned in Gal. 2:9, is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James, then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings, as well as John's, then come into question. I guess, of course, one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians, but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.

You do see, do you not, where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it.

This liberal crowd that wants to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV)

Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God, thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage, and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ, for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation.

Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc., because it would be intolerant not to be, and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They do not believe what their eyes read. They claim Christ is on their side, and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern-day liberal?

Now, how about the spirit of Christ in his own being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First, let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)

Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Finally, in Rom. 5:19, Paul speaking of Jesus said, "So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (NKJV) One cannot obey unless one has something to obey, a commandment.

Now I ask again, after quoting these passages, was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience? Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed), is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it, that is, in fact, unloving? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that?

Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about sin and righteousness than God does, as long as I believe my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God. 

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

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.

The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed, in religious error.

As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.

Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, once he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?  

Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered?" If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?

The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? 

Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.

But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel. 

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter by the Holy Spirit commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, “I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word.”

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)  

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

 

Hypocrites In The Church

Are there hypocrites in the church? Surely, there are some. Paul dealt with such in his day for he said in 2 Cor. 11:13, "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ." (NASU) In Gal. 2:4 he speaks of "false brethren secretly brought in." (NASU) Hypocrisy is an age-old problem. There are hypocrites about everywhere you look so why be surprised or shocked to find some in the church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith, Works, Baptism, and Obedience

Many believe that since the Bible teaches justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) baptism is excluded as an act essential to salvation despite many passages that teach just the opposite (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26, 1 Cor. 12:13 compared with Eph. 5:23 [baptized into one body, Christ the Savior of the body], John 3:5, Gal. 3:26-27, etc.). It is the burden of this article to show the fallacy of this belief.

In the first place, the Bible teaches that baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done, just the opposite, as stated in Titus 3:5, "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." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is a reference to baptism and is excluded by Paul as being a work of righteousness which we have done that in itself saves us apart from God’s mercy. What is baptism then? It is a part of God’s means of extending his mercy to mankind. Baptism is God showing us kindness. It is God through grace giving us a means to be saved by his mercy.

Water baptism amounts to nothing, is worthless, without God behind it in his compassion for us. When Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan River for his cleansing from leprosy (2 Kings 5) it would not have made an ounce of difference without God being behind the command with the extension of his grace. The water did not cleanse Naaman, God did, but Naaman was not going to be cleansed without dipping in the Jordan those seven times, without obeying the command to do so. Why can’t we see the parallel with baptism in our day?

One acquainted with the New Testament cannot read Titus 3:5 without being reminded of John 3:5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV) Paul, in Titus, is saying what Jesus said in John. To be saved in Titus is to enter the kingdom of God in John. To be saved is to be in the kingdom of God, where the saved are.

Indeed, Paul teaches justification by faith. "The just shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:17 NKJV) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV) "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

One cannot enter the waters of baptism without faith in what God said about doing so and expect the cleansing of sin. If I do not believe what God said about it I have not acted in faith and cannot be justified by faith.

In the book of Romans, from which I have just quoted, Paul is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Greeks. The Jews came to Christianity out of the background of Judaism and the Law of Moses. Much of what Paul writes in Romans is directed to the Jews whose inclination through much of the first century was to try and hang on to both the Law of Moses and to Christ at the same time. The Law of Moses was a law system, not a faith system. What was the problem with the Law of Moses, a works system of salvation?

Paul tells us, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'" (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) James says, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV) This is the problem not just with the Law of Moses but with any and all law systems God might give man. As soon as a man violates one law, justice demands satisfaction--punishment--"the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) To violate a law of God, any law he gives, is unrighteousness, is sin. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4 KJV)

Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live. Law condemns all of us for we have all broken God's law. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV) Thus, "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16c NKJV) The word "the" in Gal 2:16 just quoted is not found in the original but was added by the translators in both instances. When translated without the additions, it reads as follows: "By works of law no flesh shall be justified." If you check an interlinear you will find this to be true. What is the point?

The point is, while it is true Paul had specific reference to the Law of Moses because that is the law his audience had in mind, he phrases his statement in such a way as to include all law. No one will ever get to heaven by perfect keeping of works of law. Paul says the same thing in Rom. 3:28 where again the word "the" has been added by translators and is not in the original. It thus should read as follows: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of ("the" omitted here is not in the original manuscripts--DS) law." (NKJV) Deeds are works.

A question thus arises. If I am not saved by works of law why be concerned with obedience? Paul knew this was what some would conclude and he begins to address that issue in Rom. 6:1 where he says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (NKJV) Remember it is "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Paul never meant to imply that obedience was optional. Paul responds vigorously saying, "God forbid" (ASV, KJV), "By no means!" (ESV), "May it never be" (NAS), "Certainly not!" (NKJV) He says, "How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Rom. 6:2 NKJV)

He then says, "Do you not know," introducing the subject of baptism, "that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:3-4 NKJV) Whose death? Into Christ's death but watch it closely for up pops verse 8, "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." (NKJV) So we are baptized into Christ's death but that is also the place where "we died with Christ." When we arise from this death we "should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) for we have been granted a new spiritual life and we should "present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead." (Rom. 6:13 NKJV) We have been "set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18 NKJV), but when? When we died to it, "For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Rom. 6:7 NKJV, see also Rom. 6:2) When did we die? In baptism (Rom. 6:4). Thus no baptism, then no death, then no being freed from sin. This is in perfect accord with Acts 2:38 and the long list of other passages on baptism referenced in the very first paragraph of this article.

Now who is Paul talking to? To Christians who have been justified by faith, not by works. Did Paul consider baptism to be a work of the kind of which he had been talking about by which a man could not be saved? Not at all! How then did he consider it? As a part of being justified by faith.

Paul begins the book of Romans with this statement in chapter 1 verse 5 saying he had been given grace and apostleship "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name's sake." (NAS) The NKJV says, "among all nations for his name" instead of "all the Gentiles." But what was the objective? Obedience of faith! Why? Because without obedience faith is dead and cannot save anyone and that is from the get-go, from the very beginning. "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:26 NKJV)

When Peter stands up on the Day of Pentecost and preaches the first gospel sermon ever, creates by his preaching faith in those who hear, and then tells them what to do in response to their question asking what they can do he responds by saying, "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) You cannot tell me they were justified by faith if their response was "I don't think so right now, maybe later." Nor can you tell me they were justified by faith if they failed to believe the word of God that baptism was for the remission of sins, just as Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said, for that would not be belief but unbelief or disbelief. It would be the same as calling God a liar.

Paul closes the book of Romans the same way he opened it, "has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith." (Rom. 16:26 NAS) “Obedience of faith” is obedience led by faith or obedience because of faith or out of faith. What does that mean then? Faith must precede obedience. The justifying faith Paul was talking about in the book of Romans was a faith that led to obedience. Faith must precede obedience before you can have obedience out of faith.

There has never been a baptism acceptable to God but what it was first preceded by faith and submitted to by faith. This in itself invalidates infant baptism as the infant is incapable of having faith. Faith saves because it believes God and does not doubt; therefore, it acts. Without obedience (acts, works, call it what you will), faith never really lives and is dead from the beginning and thus never saved the man at any point in time. If dead faith saved, the demons would be saved for James says they believe (James 2:19). The same could be said of those rulers who believed in Jesus but did not confess him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Baptism is the dividing line between living faith and dead faith. Why? Is it because I said so? No! It is because Paul said when we arise from baptism that we "should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27 NKJV). In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV). The old man died in baptism and we arise a new creation. If we are saved before baptism (a baptism growing out of faith) the question ought to be asked who is it that dies in baptism? Is it a saved man? Paul teaches that we die in baptism in the Romans 6:2-8 passage, but why would you want to put a saved man to death? Why kill a saved man? That is the position they put themselves in who believe we are saved by faith before baptism. This is a question that needs an answer.

I want to remind the reader once again of what Paul said of baptism in Titus 3:5, "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." (NKJV) God gave us baptism (the washing of regeneration) as a part of his saving mercy towards us, not as a work of righteousness which we have done that works our way to heaven.

Baptism puts us into Christ where salvation is. Paul says in this very book of Romans, where he promotes the doctrine of justification by faith, that there is "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:1 NKJV) In the same book he tells us how we got into Christ Jesus where there is no condemnation. He says, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus …" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV).

This idea of separating faith from baptism is all man's doing. You'll not find it in the Bible. Paul says in the Galatian letter, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV) How do you get into Christ? Paul tells us a second time in this passage, that is if we did not get it the first time in the Roman passage just quoted in the prior paragraph. But, Paul tells us more. What?

He tells us you cannot separate faith from baptism unless you do it on your own initiative. The word "for" beginning in verse 27 of Galatians 3 ties it to verse 26. You cannot separate the two sentences. There is more.

Can one put on Christ without baptism? Those who say you can ought to provide the passage that tells us that. According to this Galatian passage it is done by baptism. I have never found another passage anywhere that has given an alternative.

Paul says those who are sons of God were baptized and thereby put on Christ. There is a law of exclusion in play here. If you were not baptized you did not put on Christ in baptism and are therefore excluded from being a son of God.

To summarize, "the just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38 NKJV) but it is such a faith that when it hears it believes and obeys and is not indifferent to obedience. It is thus a living faith. It does not fear that obedience is working your way to heaven. Neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever feared that obedience would be looked upon by God as an attempt to work your way to heaven. Baptism is God’s extension of grace to us, his means of cleansing us, chosen by him, not us, and not a part of works of righteousness that we have done that merit salvation.  

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

Jesus The Rock The Church Was Built On

The reader is likely aware that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe the church was built on Christ but rather upon Peter. In this article, we will examine what the Bible teaches and then let the reader decide whether to follow the Bible or the Catholic Church.

After Jesus' arrest he was brought before the Jewish council where he was asked, "'Are you then the Son of God?' And he said to them, 'You rightly say that I am.'" (Luke 22:70 NKJV) This fact was earlier confessed by Peter in Matt. 16 when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Jesus, being the Son of God, is the rock Jesus built the church on. No one can enter the church built by Jesus who does not believe this foundational doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus, as the Son of God, built the church upon himself.

Jesus is described by Peter as a living stone rejected by men but chosen by God and precious (1 Peter 2:4). He goes on a couple of verses later to say, "It is also contained in the Scripture, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.'" (1 Peter 2:6 NKJV) The chief cornerstone (a rock) is a reference to a man. I ask the reader to decide for themself whether this man Peter is describing, that if a man believes on him he will not be put to shame, is meant by Peter to be a reference to himself or to Jesus. The church cannot be built on both Jesus and Peter. Both cannot be that rock upon which the church is built. Who did Peter consider to be the chief cornerstone, himself or Jesus?

But let us compare 1 Peter 2:6 just quoted above with Isaiah 28:16 where God had said hundreds of years before Peter's time, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily." (NKJV) The stone God laid was Christ, not Peter. Isaiah was not prophesying about Peter.

But what does it mean when the text says "whoever believes will not act hastily"? The idea that both Isaiah and Peter present is that the rock God laid in Christ is so solid and so secure under the feet of the true believer that there is no insecurity. The rock you stand on when you stand on Christ is solid and secure, safe and reliable, and will not fail you. Some translations instead of “not act hastily” use the phrase “not be disturbed” (NAS), “never be stricken with panic” (NIV), or “will be unshakable” (CSB).

If Peter is the rock does this sound like Peter, you stand on Peter as the rock and you become unshakable. No, I think we would all rather stand on Christ than on Peter if we were to be unshakable.

Very early in the history of the church when Peter and John were taken into custody, a consequence of their teaching at the temple, and were placed before the Jewish rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as the high priest and as many as were of his family, Peter testified of Jesus saying, "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' Nor is there salvation in any other." (Acts 4:11-12 NKJV) In verse 10 Peter names Jesus as being the one of whom he speaks.

“Let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.

“This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ ’’ (Acts 4:10-11 NKJV)

Does that sound like Peter was declaring himself to be the one upon whom the church was built as the Catholics claim?

Paul said of Jesus, "No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) The foundation of the faith, of the church, the spiritual body of Christ, is Jesus--Jesus not as a man per se but as the Son of God. In writing to the Ephesian brethren Paul says they were members of the household of God (Eph. 2:19) "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:20 NKJV) One has his choice--he can either believe the Catholic Church that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built or he can believe the Bible which makes it plain that Jesus as the Christ, as the Son of God, is that rock.

Yes, Peter is a stone in the church but so is every other Christian. Hear Peter, "You also, (he says speaking to Christians--DS) as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) The church is the spiritual body of Christ, a spiritual building being built up. Peter is a stone in the church just like every other Christian but he is not the cornerstone, the stone upon which the church was built.

The church is Christ's body--"his body, which is the church" (Col. 1:24 NKJV - see also Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18). "He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) This is the body which he sanctified and cleansed "with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:26 NKJV), a reference to baptism, so that "he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5:27 NKJV)

Paul calls the church "God's building" (1 Cor. 3:9 NKJV) and says he laid the foundation to that building. He did so by preaching Christ and him crucified. "We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:22-23 NKJV) If a man is going to be laid as a living stone into this spiritual building called the church, which Jesus has built and continues to build by adding new stones onto it, then he must be laid on top of this foundational rock that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who came into the world as the lamb of God to give his life as a sacrifice for all of mankind's sins to bring salvation to all who will believe and obey the gospel message.

What kind of building is the church? Paul describes it as "the temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16 NKJV) and says that the Spirit of God dwells in it (1 Cor. 3:16) and says it is "holy" (1 Cor. 3:17 NKJV). In Ephesians he describes it thus, "the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit." (Eph. 2:21-22 NKJV)

Paul makes a statement in connection with the church being God's temple that ought to frighten all those who think they are free to tinker around with doctrine and practice in the church. He says, "If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him." (1 Cor. 3:17 NKJV) He says it is holy. One has to remember who built the church. Jesus said, "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) He did this by his sacrifice on the cross making the church possible and then through the medium of the Holy Spirit in the Spirit's teaching the word (the gospel) through the apostles and New Testament prophets.

The work of building continues today and will until the end of time not by means of inspired men still living but of inspiration completed and placed in the book we call the New Testament. The Holy Spirit continues the work of preaching the gospel and building the church every time the word is read or accurately conveyed in teaching and preaching.

The church was built up by men and women and boys and girls of accountable age (old enough to be responsible) hearing, believing, and obeying from the heart the gospel of Christ. Every time such an individual obeyed the gospel another living stone was added to the building of the church and such building continues on today. Shortly after Pentecost the Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) Now note who was adding to the church. It was the Lord; the Lord built the church and continues to build it yet today in the manner previously described.

But I want to go back to something mentioned earlier that needs more emphasis. I speak specifically of the great danger inherent in defiling the church, the temple of God, of which Paul says that the one who does so God will destroy (1 Cor. 3:17). God (Jesus) built the first century New Testament church. Do we think we can do better than he did? Men are trying continually to change the church from what it was in the first century and modernize it. Do we think that is wise? How do you know as a mere man that the changes that seem good and right to you or me are fine with God? Jesus is a perfect builder. Can you do better than he did without defiling the church? Remember the penalty for being mistaken is severe, not a slap on the wrist.

We might respond and say I have read the New Testament and I know not all of the churches back in the first century were what they ought to be. True! The church at Corinth had all kinds of problems and then we can read about the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2 and 3) of which most had one thing or another wrong with them. Yes, that is correct but we also see in our reading they were rebuked for their error and told what to do to get their house in order. In other words, we were given a blueprint for what the church ought to be. Who among us believes that any of those congregations could have continued in error forever without eternal consequences? The rebuking was to bring about repentance and thus salvation.

Here is our situation today. We are not going to get a letter to our church, the congregation of which we are a member, directly from the Lord or an inspired apostle. When we start deviating from the blueprint (New Testament teaching) deceiving ourselves that all is well with what we are doing there is not going to be a rebuke directly from inspiration other than from the New Testament itself. If we are or have deviated from the teachings of the New Testament we have convinced ourselves it is okay, we have justified ourselves in doing so. This makes it nearly impossible to repent, impossible because we have convinced ourselves we are doing the right thing.

No religious group knowingly goes into error. God's people in the Old Testament went into all kinds of sin and even into idolatry. When they were going down that path did they go thinking I want to commit spiritual suicide? They did what they did because they had convinced themselves it was the right thing to do and all of God's prophets could not keep them from it. They saw their error as not being an error but as being their salvation. They had gradually lost their faith in God's word until there was no faith left in it at all save on the part of a tiny remnant of believers.

How does one defile the temple of God, the church? I know of no other way other than by departing from that which governs the church -- the word of God. When a group of people (a congregation or church) begins to practice things not found in the New Testament, allows liberties God does not permit in his word, begins to teach things contrary to the direct word of God, adds to the worship things unheard of in the pages of the new covenant, tolerates sin in the church winking at it or worse begins to call sin righteousness then I would fear being a member of such a congregation. God doesn't just talk to be talking or because he is bored. He said he would destroy him who defiled the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:17) and I for one do not want to be in the vicinity when that happens, do you? Do you want it to be said that you went along with the defiling even if you did not initiate it?

Christ built the church. He is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). The church is to be subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24). Those things being true then if I come into your worship service and you are doing something I cannot find in the word of Christ (the New Testament) I want to know why you are doing it and upon whose authority. Don't tell me it does not matter for "whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Col. 3:17 NKJV) How do you do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus when the Lord Jesus has never said a word about the thing that you are doing? Do you think you a mere man can take the authority upon yourself to initiate things into the worship service unknown to the word of God? The sad truth is yes most in Christendom believe that very thing. The church cannot be defiled by doing what the scriptures teach but it certainly can by adding things not found in scripture.

In closing, Jesus is the foundation of the church, the rock upon which the church was built but it is his church, not mine, not yours. He built it and he built it the way he wanted it and not the way you or I might like it to be. It is what it is. Our choice is to accept it, reject it outright, or defile it as many have done. The church belongs to Jesus. If we would remember that we would perhaps quit trying to make it ours. We get to be a part of it, a living stone, but we do not own it or rule it and we have no part in making rules for it unless we want to get into the defiling business.  

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

Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross

I once had an individual ask the question that if baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, then why did Jesus not tell the rich young ruler who came to him inquiring, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 NKJV) My inquirer asked the wrong question. Why? Because when Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler he was not talking to you and me. He was speaking directly to a specific individual at a specific time in history.

The only lessons in the account of the rich young ruler that could be made applicable to us today are (1) a man may be very religious but lost and (2) the danger of having a hidden idol in one's heart and putting that ahead of God.

Your salvation and mine do not depend on what Jesus did or did not tell a man living under the Law of Moses sometime before Jesus’ death on the cross. Our salvation depends on what Jesus says directly to you and me today under his law, the law of Christ, which began to be preached among men beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We live under God’s new covenant, not his old.

Jesus, in speaking to his disciples after the resurrection, said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)

Luke tells us they were ordered to not depart from Jerusalem, "He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Act 1:4-5 ESV)

In Acts 2 we see the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) clothing the apostles with power from on high. Peter's sermon that day and in that chapter fulfilled Jesus' earlier proclamation found in Luke 24 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47 ESV)

This gives us a beginning point of both the time and place of the gospel message God has for us today. Those desiring to be saved the way the thief on the cross was saved (by faith without baptism) go back too far, past Jerusalem, past the beginning, back to the Law of Moses, and in doing so end up with another gospel if their goal is to be saved that way today. The only way to have the Jerusalem gospel is to preach what Peter did that day beginning in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Since hardly anyone is willing to do that today their gospel is another gospel.

A person who seeks to be saved in a way some individual may have been saved while Christ lived and walked upon the earth is rejecting the Jerusalem gospel--"repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." That individual's gospel does not originate in Jerusalem and is thus not the gospel of Christ.

A big part of the problem that causes people to misunderstand God's plan of salvation for man is a failure to discern what we call the dispensations. There are 3 as follows: (1) the Patriarchal, (2) the Mosaical, and (3) the Christian. I will deal with the last two as they are relevant to this discussion.

Jesus lived and died under the Mosaical law. Jesus was in the fullness of time "born of a woman, born under the Law." (Gal. 4:4 NAS) When we say Jesus lived a sinless life what law did he keep perfectly? The Law of Moses. In what was the second to last utterance Jesus made on the cross he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NAS) What was finished? What was finished was the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets (which included, of course, his sacrifice on the cross as prophesied, his mission on earth to make himself a sacrifice for the sins of man).

Hear Jesus in Matt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (ESV) When Jesus drew his last breath on the cross the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, either that or Jesus failed in his mission “to fulfill them.”

The law of Christ became binding on men as the old law was fulfilled and passed away. The old Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) The Christian dispensation of time when men came to live under the law of Christ began when Jesus died. "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Heb 9:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus "has become a surety of a better covenant." (Heb. 7:22 NKJV) "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one (the Law of Moses--DS) obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 NKJV) "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Many take the thief on the cross as an example for all men regarding salvation (Luke 23:39-43) and say look at him. All he needed was faith. Was Jesus talking to you (or me) or was he talking to the thief on the cross beside him that day approximately 2,000 years ago? Did the thief live under the Christian dispensation or the Mosaical? Had the gospel that was to be preached beginning at Jerusalem yet been preached? Will you disregard the Jerusalem gospel? You will have to if you attempt to be saved as the thief on the cross was.

If Jesus forgave sins in the gospel accounts before his death in a way different from that which sins are forgiven today what has that to do with me? I live under the New Covenant.  So do you.

Speaking to the apostles Jesus said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26 NAS) Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do this with Peter on the day of Pentecost? If you ever wanted to know when Jesus taught baptism for the remission of sins then Acts 2:38 is one of your answers. Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit but the Spirit spoke the words of Jesus.

Speaking to the apostles before his death Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you." (John 16:12-14 NAS)

Today we have the completed revelation that Jesus has made to man. The law Jesus has for you and me has now been fully revealed to us. For us today to go back and say it was not always done this way is foolishness. What is that supposed to prove even if it is true which, by the way, I do not deny? What if the thief on the cross did not have to do what you or I do for salvation? What does that have to do with either you or me?

If we expect to be saved like the thief on the cross that is about the equivalent of giving Jesus a slap across the face. It is saying I don't care about your new covenant. You save me like you saved him. Instead of you obeying Jesus you would have him taking orders from you and obeying you. It does not work that way.

We are bound to live under and obey whatever law is in effect while we live, not when someone else lived. Our job is not to question God but to do as he has told us. No matter what someone else has done or not done in years gone by for salvation you have the gospel of Christ now, the new covenant, the law of Christ. You are bound to it, to believe and obey it, as am I.

I add a footnote here in closing for clarification. The thief on the cross was not saved because he lived under the Law of Moses or kept it in any fashion. He was saved because the Lord extended him grace. In our day the Lord’s grace is extended to us in the gospel. To reject the gospel is to reject God’s grace.  

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