Apollos and Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter's Preaching and the Apostle's Preaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To obey meant to obey what?  Well, it meant to obey all things the apostles spoke by the Holy Spirit.  What was that as it related to gospel obedience, to making one a Christian?  It included what Peter commanded in his Day of Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 preached by means of the Holy Spirit.  "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revelation Has Ended – Its Proof and Consequences

Sometimes we fail to see what is in front of our eyes.  Anyone who has ever pulled out in front of a car or truck even after having looked beforehand knows the truth of this statement.  Evidently, our mind does not process what our eyes have seen so that with the mind there is nothing there.  One can see and yet not see all at the same time.

All of us human beings are prone to this syndrome not only in the physical realm but also in matters dealing with the intellect, including in the spiritual realm.  We ought to see and come to the proper conclusions but we often don’t.  Jesus said the reason he spoke in parables was “while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matt. 13:13 NAS 2020)  Or, as the NIV puts it, “though seeing, they do not see.”  None of us wants to be in that camp but sometimes we are.

I just recently discovered how I too had not seen what was right before my eyes all these years in a passage I have read who knows how many dozens of times – John 16:13.  I had not grasped its full significance.  I owe my newfound insight to an article written by a preacher named Dub McClish as found in the book Studies in Hebrews (The Second Annual Denton Lectures, Nov. 13-17, 1983), pages 108-122.  In his article entitled “God Has Spoken The Living Word” page 121 is the relevant page.  If it was not for copyright laws I would just quote the passage verbatim but as it is I will reword the material.  I think it is well worth your consideration.

John 16:13 reads as follows: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth … “  This is the portion of the passage Mr. McClish expounds upon and which I want to consider.  While the argument made is not mine I will state it and expand upon it.

This was clearly a passage promising the Holy Spirit, a passage that is looking forward to a future event.  The question is who is Jesus speaking to?  The answer is those with whom he was gathered at the time and who was that?  It was clearly the apostles.  Read John 16:13 in context (chapters 13–17).  It was those of whom he said, “I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” (John 15:16 NKJV)

Who did Jesus choose?  “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles.” (Luke 6:13 NKJV)  Again, one reads in Acts 1:2b-5 the following, “after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, To whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.  And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, ‘which,’ He said, ‘you have heard from Me (likely a reference to Luke 24:49—DS); for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (NKJV)

In Acts 2:4 we see the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit.  “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Act 2:4 NKJV)

To further confirm it was the apostles to whom Jesus gave his address one needs to take into account the fact that John chapters 13 – 16 is one extended discourse given to the same group of individuals.  And who was here listed by name?  We have Peter (John 13:6), Thomas (John 14:5), Philip (John 14:8), and Judas, not Iscariot (John 14:22) mentioned by name and who might these be?  Apostles all.

The point so far has been to show that those to whom Jesus was speaking in John 16:13 were the twelve apostles.  That is extremely important.  When you or I are talking to a person that is who we are talking to.  We are not addressing someone down the street, across town, in another state, another nation, or another time.

Now I think most people who call themselves Christian have believed and do believe John 16:13 as I have but we have often overlooked a necessary implication of that verse.  Does “all” mean “all?”  If it does then it implies directly, forcibly, and without dispute, that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  All truth is all truth.  Once you have all there is of a thing that is all there is to be had.  There will be no more.

That concept destroys any and all religions that lay claim to having any further revelations of truth since the end of the first century, since the death of the last apostle.  It destroys Roman Catholicism with its ever-changing and often new added doctrines.  It ruins Mormonism.  It (John 16:13) set a time limit on the deliverance of new doctrines – the lifetime of the last of the apostles appointed by Jesus.  Most scholars say the last living apostle of the New Testament era was John and his life ended near the end of the first century.

If the apostles were guided into all truth there was no more truth to be guided into by Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or by any other group out there that has claimed revelation after the first century.

I believe this is irrefutable.  However, I do not think for a minute it will be accepted for I well know religion is based with most of mankind more on emotion and tradition rather than rational thought.  Tradition and emotion are hard nuts to crack.  Nevertheless, truth stands on its own and always wins out in the end.  To fight against it is like fighting against growing old.  You may fight but you will not win. 

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