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.]

 

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.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) The washing was done in baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cleansing of the Church at Ephesus

How was the church at Ephesus cleansed from sin? To be cleansed from sin is to be saved. I think most in Christendom are well aware of the famous Ephesian passage found in chapter two, verses eight and nine, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” (NAS) Many, many passages of the New Testament teach that salvation is a matter of God’s grace (Acts 15:11, Rom. 3:24, Gal. 2:21, 5:4, Eph. 1:7, 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:16, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:13). I have listed most of them here so the reader will know I am well aware of them.

I am thankful it is that way. If salvation were by works, a person might well come up short; the Bible teaches he would (Rom. 3:23). That is exactly what happened to the Jewish people under the Law of Moses. None was able to keep it. “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) I think we are all glad salvation is a matter of God’s grace, versus works, for works demanded perfection.

God’s grace, which gives us salvation, is granted to us as a result of faith we possess. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (Rom. 5:1-2 NAS) “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” (Eph. 2:8 NAS) There are many other passages teaching that we are saved by faith. Here are quite a number of them: John 3:14-16, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 20:31, Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, 1 Tim. 1:16, Heb. 11:6, 1 John 5:13, Rom. 3:26, 28, 30, 5:1, 11:20, Gal. 2:16, 3:24, 26, Eph. 2:8, Philippians 3:9, 1 Peter 1:9. These were again listed that the reader might know I am fully aware of them.

The question that arises, however, is what is this faith that justifies, that gives us God’s grace? I am not asking what the object of the faith is, for we know that. I am asking what the nature of this faith is. Many, perhaps most, are persuaded today (and have been since the Reformation) that it is merely a state of the mind regarding a belief one has in Jesus, who he is, and what he has accomplished for us. It is mental assent to the teachings of the scriptures about him. This is the faith that it is said saves. I certainly agree with that as far as it goes, but it stops short, too short.

One must not only believe what the scriptures teach about Jesus--who he was, what he accomplished--but faith also commits us to believe the man himself, believe what he said, and act on it. If faith does not lead to action, it is dead faith (James 2:17). James says it is “useless.” (James 2:20 NAS) Even in this world, as regards worldly matters, how can we say we have faith in a man when we will not take the man at his word?

The faith the Ephesians had that resulted in their cleansing from sin was the faith they had in what Jesus taught them through his inspired representatives. Paul was an inspired man, but the Holy Spirit, whether speaking through Paul or through any other apostle or first-century prophet, did not speak on his own initiative. “He will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak…he shall take of mine, and shall disclose it to you.” (John 16:13-14 NAS--the words of Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit) Thus, the Holy Spirit spoke the words of Jesus, and Jesus was thus their teacher.

Paul said later in the book of Ephesians that Jesus cleansed the church, “by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:26 NAS) “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:25-26 NAS)

Who was cleansed that way? Those Paul said earlier that had been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). The washing of water with the word is clearly a reference to baptism. What did Jesus teach about baptism? “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NAS) “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NAS)

John 3:5 and Eph. 5:26 teach the same thing. The Spirit gave the word. The Spirit working through the word works on our spirit, if we will allow it to do so, changing our thinking, our attitudes, our desires, and our will, bringing us to the point where we are ready to put the old man to death and be baptized to arise in “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4 NAS) To be cleansed by the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26) is the same as to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Furthermore, in scripture, the church (Eph. 5:25-26) and the kingdom (John 3:5), generally, not always but generally, are interchangeable terms. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. When he used those keys, by preaching the gospel on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and people believed and obeyed, they were added to the church, one and the same as the kingdom that Peter was opening with his keys.

Were the Ephesians saved by grace through faith “before” they were cleansed? What was the church, the church being the members, cleansed of, if not sin? Can you be saved without first being cleansed of sin? They were saved by grace through faith when cleansed of sin by the washing of water with the word. That washing was done by “the obedience of faith.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS) Paul said he had received grace and apostleship, “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS)

Paul himself, obviously a church member, was told at his own conversion, “Why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 NAS) Paul had experienced the same washing and for the same reason the church had at Ephesus. No, water itself cannot wash away sins, but it can if God has made the decision that that is the time and place where he will act in response to a person’s faith. Some have said baptism is a test of faith, and I do not argue with them.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, “became furious” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) when told he needed to go wash in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy. He did not want to do it that way. His faith had brought him thus far to Elisha, and he felt that should be good enough. Elisha should just come out and “stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Obedience of faith had no place in his thinking. One is reminded of today.

No, the water of the Jordan had no magical power to heal Naaman, but faith in what God told Naaman to do, a faith strong enough to get him to act simply because God said to do it, was the faith that made the difference. Naaman is an excellent example of a man who experienced two types of faith. The first failed him in obtaining his objective. Why? Because it was based on his preconceived ideas of how God should do things.

When told to go wash in the Jordan seven times, "Naaman became furious, and went away and said, 'Indeed, I said to myself, 'He (reference to Elisha, God's prophet—DS) will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.''" (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Naaman's faith that failed was faith in his own idea of how God should act. Naaman admits as much when he says, "I said to myself."

His later faith that brought Naaman healing was based not on Naaman's personal thinking but on what God said—"Go and wash in the Jordan seven times." (2 Kings 5:10 NKJV) This was the faith that brought healing when his faith became strong enough to become obedient to God's word.

This illustrates man's faith today in the spiritual realm with regard to baptism. There are two types of faith in what is commonly referred to as Christendom, as it relates to our salvation. The one says we will stop here (at the point of faith--mental assent) and do it this way. We have gone far enough; let God do the rest. The other faith says God said to do it (be baptized) for this reason (the remission of sins--Acts 2:38), I believe him, and I will do what he says because I believe. Both have what men generally call faith, but clearly, the faith is not the same.

There is also a question that needs to be asked. If Paul did not consider baptism to be salvation by works, why should we consider it to be salvation by works today? I have never heard a direct answer to that question. Paul tells the Ephesians they have been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and then tells them at the same time they have been cleansed by the washing of water through the word (Eph. 5:26). He doesn’t miss a beat, doesn’t seem in the least to feel he has contradicted himself, so why should we feel that the two passages are contradictory? Why do we feel we have to try and devise a way to explain away the obvious meaning of the phrase "the washing of water?"

But there is much more in proof of the point I am making. In Eph. 1:7, Paul says, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” (NAS) In him is a reference, obviously, to Jesus who shed his blood for us. How does one get into him, into Jesus Christ? Gal. 3:27 says we were “baptized into Christ” (NAS) and so does Rom. 6:3, “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” (NAS) I know of no passage in the New Testament anywhere that tells one how to get into Christ other than through baptism.

If you were to start through the book of Ephesians and start marking every passage you come to that talks about different things that are found “in him,” “in Christ,” “in the Beloved,” here is some of what you would come up with: (1) every spiritual blessing--Eph. 1:3, (2) grace--Eph. 1:6, (3) redemption--Eph. 1:7, (4) an inheritance--Eph. 1:10-11, (5) sealed with the Holy Spirit--Eph. 1:13, (6) seated us in heavenly places--Eph. 2:6, (7) kindness toward us--Eph. 2:7, (8) his workmanship--Eph. 2:10, (9) brought near by the blood of Christ--Eph. 2:13, (10) partakers of the promise--Eph. 3:6. But one must note that all of these blessings are in, not outside of, but in Christ. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NAS) How does one enter Christ? By baptism. If one is clothed with Christ, he is in Christ.

Paul says elsewhere in the book of Ephesians, “we are members of his body.” (Eph. 5:30 NAS) But, then Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12:13 how we get into that body, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NAS) What is Christ the Savior of according to Paul in Ephesians? “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, he himself being the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5: 23 NAS) This is the same body we are baptized into, that is, if we are in it, for that is the only way the scriptures give of entering into it--not by baptism alone but by the obedience of faith that results in baptism. The body of Christ, being the church (Eph. 1:22-23), is that which was cleansed "with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV)

Where is grace found? The Bible tells us, “Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NAS) Paul tells the Ephesians that this grace is “bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:6 NAS) Again, how does one get into Christ, the Beloved, according to the scriptures? We have already answered that. When one is led by faith to believe Jesus and obey him in baptism for the remission of sins, he enters into Christ, into the realm of grace by which he is saved.

In the book of Acts, chapter 19, Paul comes to Ephesus and finds 12 men there who are disciples. He asks them this question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2 NAS) They respond no, they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul then says, “Into what then were you baptized?” (Acts 19:3 NAS) Please note this one thing--Paul takes it for granted that if they were Christians, they had been baptized. He doesn’t ask them if they had been baptized. Why not? Paul doesn’t ask them because he knows what it takes to become a Christian and be saved. “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16 KJV, Ananias speaking to Saul, a believer, before Saul’s baptism)

One also ought to note the first thing Paul did with these 12 men, after learning their situation, was to have them “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5 NAS) Yes, Paul taught baptism at Ephesus. Paul stayed in Ephesus at least two years (see Acts 19:10) after this event, so when Paul said later in Ephesians that the church was cleansed by the washing of water with the word, there is no doubt he knew from personal experience all about baptism at Ephesus. There is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian, for Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) that all disciples be baptized. Paul either baptized them personally or saw to it that they were baptized by one or more of those who helped with the work. Either that or he disobeyed Christ, for which disciple was it that Christ said need not be baptized?

Faith is not just something to be believed but also obeyed. One must obey the gospel to be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-8). In a sense, the gospel is the faith (Jude 3); it is that body of doctrine that is to be believed, but within that body of doctrine that constitutes the faith, there are things that must be obeyed as well as believed. In addition to mental assent to the truth about Jesus as revealed in the scripture one must repent of sins (Acts 17:30), one must confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10), and one must be baptized into Christ, baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27). Faith, the faith that saves, is not a dead faith but an active one. It is by faith that a man does these things, by faith because he heard the words of God and believed them enough to take them to heart and obey them.

Do not allow yourself to be misled. A person does not believe Jesus who believes the doctrine that says, “he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved,” for that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said just the opposite.

I have asked this question before, but have never gotten an answer. If Jesus wanted man to know that baptism was essential to the remission of sins, the cleansing from sin, how would he say it in a way to get man to understand it? He could not say “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 KJV) for he already said that via the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter, and men will not accept it.

How would he say it to make it plain and simple enough so all could understand it? No one has yet answered that question. The truth is, Jesus has stated it as clearly as it can be stated by mere words alone. Men will either accept it or reject it and thereby be judged.

Have you been cleansed with the washing of water by the word? Will you be one with those saints in Ephesus Paul wrote to, or are you going to be another kind of Christian unknown to the church at Ephesus?

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

 

Is Water Baptism in John 3:5

From time to time, one is surprised by the ideas that people come up with. One idea that was presented to me and surprised me was the thought that the water mentioned in John 3:5 where Jesus says, “most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV) had reference not to baptism but to the water of childbirth. I was aware that others explain the water away in other ways as not being baptism, but this childbirth explanation was a new one to me.

In any case, I thought it good to write yet another article on the subject, dealing this time not so much on biblical arguments, for that I have already done in other articles, but upon the historical record to show that today’s interpretations of water in John 3:5 as being something other than baptism are modern-day explanations. While it may seem that many support those views today, it was not that way in the past; in fact, just the opposite.

In the book entitled The Gospel Plan of Salvation, first published in 1874, by T. W. Brents, I quote as follows: “The religious world, with one voice, from the days of Christ until quite recently, has ascribed this language to water baptism.” (Page 490) He goes on to quote a Dr. Wall as follows: “There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language, but what understands it of baptism.” (Page 490, a quote from Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 147)

Burton Coffman, in his Commentary on John, page 81, says, “It is only quite recently in Christian times that interpretations of this verse have been devised to exclude its obvious reference to Christian baptism.” He goes on to quote John Boys, the Dean of Canterbury, a famous preacher and scholar of the Church of England in the seventeenth century who said of his time (1600’s) that some few (he says “few”--not “many”) were saying that the water of the passage we are speaking of, John 3:5, “are not to be construed of external baptism.”

Boys is further quoted as saying, “Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, in the commentaries on this place (3:5), along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and many more, yea most of the Fathers—Hooker, a man of incomparable reading, openeth his mouth wider, avowing peremptorily that all the ancients … have construed this text, as our church doth, of outward baptism.” (as quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 81).

One last quote from Coffman’s commentary is from the famous church historian Phillip Schaff, of the nineteenth century, Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, who said, “It seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5 from baptism. Calvin’s interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the R. Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.” (quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 82)

Online there is an article entitled, “Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers,” from whence I quote this: “Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord's words in John chapter 3 that to be ‘born again’ and ‘born of water and the Spirit’ refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevant sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition).” No author is listed for this article but the home page suggests it is by Phil Porvaznik. In any case, there are extensive quotations from what the author says are all the church fathers through the fifth century to back up his statement of what the thinking was in the early years of the church.  As I prepare to post this, the article is still online at:

https://www.evangelizationstation.com/oldsite/htm_html/Sacraments/Baptism/born_again.htm

Hopefully, it will remain online for some time to come, but there are no guarantees of that.

Because an interpretation is old does not make it right, but conversely, because an interpretation is new does not make it right either. Christianity is now about 2,000 years old. For about 1500 years of that, most who considered themselves Christians understood the passage in John 3:5 pertaining to being born of water as a clear reference to baptism. Modern-day interpretations that differ from that should not be considered infallible simply because they are modern. Not everything new is better than the old. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jer. 6:16 NKJV)

Here is a good way to read John 3:5 when people want to give a new interpretation to the water of the passage. Read it transposing the meaning they propose into the passage and see if it makes sense. For example, the passage reads “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now transpose the meaning given by my antagonist, “unless one is born of the water of childbirth and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” That is like saying unless one is born a human being he cannot enter the kingdom of God. As the kids today would say, “Well, duh.”

There is no warrant for understanding the water of John 3:5 being anything other than baptism. We see multitudes of people being baptized in water in the book of Acts. That practice, plus many other passages emphasizing the need for water baptism in the scriptures, ought to settle any questions about the matter.

I understand I have not discussed John 3:5 with regard to making scriptural arguments. I said in the beginning that the purpose of this article was to throw some light on the historical record and not do what I have already done before in several different articles where I have discussed the passage in depth from a scriptural perspective.  

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