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 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.]