Paul's Preaching at Corinth

Did Paul preach the same gospel at Corinth that he preached elsewhere? Everywhere else he taught, as part of the gospel, baptism for the remission of sins. One can go to Acts 16 and read two accounts, in the same chapter, of conversions made by Paul--Lydia and the Philippian jailer--in which, in both instances, those being converted were baptized.

Paul himself, in his conversion, was baptized. You may recall the words of Ananias to him, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NAS) I might add that it is hard to wash away sins if you do not have any to wash away so evidently Ananias felt that Paul still had sin in his life. Many modern-day preachers speak as though they know more about it than what Ananias did as they say men are saved at the point of faith without baptism and thus have no sins to wash away. They would have Paul saved and free from sin immediately after his experience with Christ on the road to Damascus. Ananias seems as though he would have disagreed with them.

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians that cause some people trouble on the subject of baptism--1 Cor. 1:14. Paul preached baptism, personally baptized some, was baptized himself, and yet here he says, in writing to the church at Corinth, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius." (NAS) What gives? That is a good question deserving a response.

We know Paul preached baptism at Corinth. How do we know? In Acts 18:8 we find the result of Paul's preaching there. The text says, "Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." (Acts 18:8 NAS) I stop here and ask a question. If Paul was not preaching baptism at Corinth who was? Someone was as people were being baptized. However, if you will read Acts 18:5-8 you will see clearly the one doing the preaching was Paul. But we read 1 Cor. 1:14 and doubt enters our mind.

There is no need for doubt as will be shown. If Paul preached one gospel in one location that had baptism in it and another gospel in another location that did not then why should any of us listen to anything he had to say? He says, "Even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NAS) If Paul preached more than one gospel he condemned himself by his very own words. That did not happen.

In the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS) We need for our study to emphasize the words "baptized into Christ".

But first, what does the word "for" mean? Has Paul not tied faith in Christ directly with baptism with his second use of the word "for" in this passage? If you have faith in Christ you are baptized. If you do not have faith in Christ you are not baptized. It is that simple.

True faith in Christ demands baptism for the reason that Jesus taught it. You cannot have faith in Christ and yet lack faith in what he taught and commanded. (See Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:16 on what Jesus taught on the subject of baptism. See also John 3:5.)

Let me ask some questions based on this passage--Galatians 3:27. Paul says, again, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." What about those who were not baptized? Did they clothe themselves with Christ? Did Paul say for all of you who were not baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ? Is that what he said?

How does one get into Christ, the only place salvation can be found? Does not the text tell us clearly if we will only listen?

If Paul preached baptism once he preached it everywhere he went whether the text says he did or not. There is absolutely no choice but to infer that he taught baptism to both Lydia and the Philipian jailer (Acts 16) or else how did they know about it and why did they submit to it?

All of that said we need not make necessary inferences about baptism at Corinth for Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth, says in 1 Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Baptized into what body? The body of Christ as per Gal. 3:27. Who was baptized? "We were all baptized," Paul says.

One may object and say that the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23) so baptism is just about getting into the church. Baptism is about getting into the spiritual body of Christ and, yes, that is the church, but that is also the very thing Christ is the Savior of. "He himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NAS) He has not said a word about saving anything else other than his body so one must be in his body.

One needs to get himself into Christ where salvation is and the road to doing that is certainly faith but not faith alone apart from repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism for the remission of sins which places one in Christ. God adds one to his church but not randomly. He adds only those who meet his qualifications.

The reader should not confuse being in the church mentioned in the Bible with denominations. The thing Paul is discussing is not denominationalism which did not exist when Paul wrote and would not for hundreds of years to come. One is baptized into the New Testament church, the one Christ established and gave his life for and which will be saved on the last day. Everyone in the church will be saved provided they live faithful lives, a big if.

Now to the passage at hand which troubles some, 1 Cor. 1:14-17, Paul speaking, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." (NAS)

There are two points about this passage that we have to keep in mind lest we be led astray. (1) The problem at Corinth that Paul is discussing in the first chapter of First Corinthians is that of men making themselves disciples of various prominent men, evangelists, rather than of Christ, thus creating division. In verse 13 Paul says, "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (NAS) "In the name of Paul" should read instead "into the name of Paul" (see the side margin notes in the NASB reference edition which lists the word "into" as the literal translation).

Baptism is "into Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and not "into" man. Only in Christ is salvation found. No one at Corinth was baptized into any man's name other than Christ. Paul was thus thankful he had not personally baptized many at Corinth "that no man should say you were baptized in ("into" is the literal translation--DS) my name." (1 Cor. 1:15 NAS) Any person baptized into a name other than Christ would not be a Christian. Paul was addressing Christians, Christians who were becoming disunited, Christians who were dividing.

He says that in light of what was going on there. Had he baptized more then the more likely there would be those claiming to be of Paul and Paul wanted no part of this division in the church that was occurring. His point was that men are baptized into Christ, not into a man, and thus should wear the name of Christian only. There is no such thing as being of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas, and it is wrong to claim allegiance to such and divide the church.

(2) The second thing we must understand is that just because Paul did not do the baptizing does not mean that his helpers such as Timothy and others did not do so on his behalf in rendering aid to him in his work. We know both Silas and Timothy were with him in Corinth (see Acts 18:5-8). We have another account of this very thing with Jesus. John says, "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were) he left Judea." (John 4:1-2 NAS)

We need to use our common sense. Paul is not going to preach baptism and then not see that it is done when people respond to his preaching. None of us think that Peter personally baptized the 3,000 who responded to his preaching on the day of Pentecost when he preached baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). We are sure he had help. If we were to find Paul had men traveling with him who did this work why should we be shocked? 1 Cor. 12:13 certainly proves someone was doing the baptizing there.

I think we have pretty much covered the ground that needs to be covered concerning what happened in Corinth with regard to Paul's preaching and practice. The same thing happened at Corinth that happened everywhere else he preached -- the same gospel, the same baptism for those who believed.

One final comment – why did Paul say Christ did not send him to baptize? Because any man can baptize another. It is a physical act as far as immersion is concerned. Anyone could do that for another but not every man could preach the gospel with Holy Spirit inspiration as could Paul. That was his main mission and others could follow up his preaching by baptizing those being converted.

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

 

Born of Water and of the Spirit: The New Birth

Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASU) and then a couple of verses later expounds upon his statement when he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NASU)

This passage has troubled people over the years. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? The real problem lies not in the difficulty of the passage but rather with those who are unwilling to accept the obvious import of the passage.

People often fail to understand Bible passages not because they are difficult but rather due to prejudice, closed minds. While I want to discuss the entire phrase "born of water and the Spirit," I first want to give you an example of what I am talking about as it relates to the passage we will be discussing. One very well-known Bible scholar who is also an author, and one I might add who has profited me in some of the things he has written, said of this passage that water here could not mean water.

In his mind, this was such a settled fact that there was no reason to even think about giving a reason for making such a statement, and he did not give one. The mind is closed to the thought. It is not worthy of consideration, for it is simply not possible for water to mean water in this passage. It has to mean something else.

Let us now deal with the passage and make it as simple as it really is. I begin by saying that it is essential to come to a correct understanding, as our eternal lives depend on it. Jesus says if we are not "born of water and the Spirit," we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I need not tell you that salvation is in God's kingdom, not outside it. It is essential to get into the kingdom of God if we hope to be saved. We are either in the domain of darkness or in the kingdom of God. There is no middle ground; it is an either-or proposition; we are either in or we are out.

Paul speaking to Christians says, "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:13 NASU) Whether we are in the domain of darkness or in Christ's kingdom depends on whether or not we have met his qualifications for being in his kingdom.

I know this is hard for us to sometimes accept, for we know people we would consider good people who are not Christians. They are moral people; they are honest; they work hard; they treat us well, and it is hard to see how God could reject them. It is hard for us to accept that they are in the domain of darkness.

They are like Cornelius in Acts 10, a man of whom nothing but good was spoken of. The Scriptures say of him that he was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." (Acts 10:2 NASU) But I remind the reader that Cornelius, to be saved, had to hear, believe, and obey the gospel for salvation.

If he was already saved, in the state he was in, why bother Peter? Why does Peter need to travel to Caesarea, in view of the fact that it is a waste of his time to preach to Cornelius if Cornelius, a good man, is already saved? He was not saved. Peter later reported to the brethren back in Jerusalem about this matter saying, "He (Cornelius—DS) reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words (the gospel--DS) to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'" (Acts 11:13-14 NASU)

When a man obeys the gospel, it is an act of submission to God's will. We will either submit to his will or our own. When we refuse to submit to his will, no matter how good we are in other areas of life, how can it be truly said that we are godly? By our refusal to obey the gospel, we are saying we do not need God, Jesus did not need to die for me (his death was a waste, I did not need it), and I am not a sinner. The very fact that we refuse to obey the gospel, a command of God, proves in itself that we are in rebellion, in sin.

This being the case, how is one born of water and the Spirit, which is the equivalent of hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel? I say first of all that this is a single birth rather than two separate ones. How do I know? Because Jesus tells us so, just two verses before this verse, for he says in John 3:3, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (NASU) How many times does Jesus say a man is born again? Once! If we make these two births, one of water and the other of the Spirit, then we have one more birth than Jesus requires. One is born again, not twice, but once.

What is the role of the Spirit? Jesus says in John 6:44-45, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (NASU)

How is one taught of God? The answer is through the teachings of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, found in our day in the pages of the New Testament. Hear Jesus, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63 NASU) So it is clearly seen that words do make a difference in bringing about spiritual life; the words of the Spirit bring life.

Peter says we have "been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." (1 Peter 1:23 NASU) God's word is living. James says, "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth." (James 1:18 NASU) God's word produces life in those who believe and accept it. James, "brought us forth" in this passage, is a reference to how the process of being born again comes about, by the "word of truth."

The Spirit works in bringing about the new birth in a man or woman by means of the word of God in the pages of the New Testament. In the parable of the sower (or soils if you prefer), as found in Luke 8, Jesus said "the seed is the word of God." (Luke 8:11) As it is sown in the hearts of people, it bears fruit, not in all but in those willing to hear and accept it. Four types of soil are mentioned in the parable, but only one type brought forth fruit. Jesus, in speaking of that soil, says "the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASU)

When one accepts the word of God and allows it to work in his life, having an honest and good heart, faith develops and leads the man to repentance, changing him within in his inner being, his spirit. He now believes differently, has different goals and aspirations, and wants to live a different life. When this occurs, the first prerequisite for the new birth has been met. However, Jesus also says in John 3:5 that one must be born not only of the Spirit but also of water if he is to enter into the kingdom of God.

Here is where multitudes have come up short. They fail to accept baptism. Needless to say, water is a reference to baptism. However, lest I be like the man who says water is not water but offers no proof, I need to prove my statement.

First of all, Jesus taught that baptism was essential when he gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). He says, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved…" (Mark 16:16 NASU). He does not say "he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved," even though many want to read it that way. The baptism of the Great Commission was in water and thus was essential for salvation.

But let us look at some other passages that, relating to the new birth, are even clearer. "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NASU) When do we walk in newness of life (born again, the new birth)? When we have been baptized.

Take a look at 2 Cor. 5:17, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (NASU) A new creature equals a new birth. The Bible tells us how to enter Christ. "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal. 3:27 NASU) Now, what does it take to get into Christ—baptism. Paul says we are "baptized into Christ." Then we are the new creature.

Where is salvation? Peter says, "there is salvation in no one else" (Acts 4:12 NASU), speaking of Jesus. Paul says, "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10 NASU) Getting into Christ Jesus is thus essential.

One is a new creature upon entering into Christ (born again). One enters Christ by the act of baptism, having been baptized as a result of the consequences of the Spirit working in his life. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NASU) That body into which we are baptized is the body of Christ, the body where one finds salvation, "He Himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NASU)

Let us take a look at a couple of passages that teach just what Jesus taught about the new birth in John 3, but which are often overlooked. Paul says in Titus 3:5 (NASU), "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

God's mercy, his grace, saves us, but how? By the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. This is just another way of saying exactly what Jesus said in John 3:5 regarding being born of water and the Spirit. The washing of regeneration is baptism.

In another parallel passage Paul says in Eph. 5:25-26 regarding Jesus and the church (the church being his spiritual body, the body he saves, Eph. 1:22-23), "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." (NASU) Yes, water is water in John 3:5, and not something else, and Jesus says his word "gives life" (John 6:63 NAS) and that his words "are spirit" (John 6:63 NAS).

If this passage does not clarify what it means to be born of water and the Spirit, I am not sure I know what it would take. How are we cleansed; how are we born again; how are we saved? By the washing of water (baptism—DS) with the word (the Spirit using the word as his tool to change us in our spirit).

Thus, the new birth, what it means to be born again, to be born of water and the Spirit, is not that difficult and could be easily understood if we had open minds.

However, like the Jews of old, we often have too much at stake to allow us to see the truth. We have family that has passed on, and we cannot allow water to mean baptism, for we think that would condemn them. We cannot allow water to mean water, for if we were to accept that, it would make demands on us to comply, which might alienate friends and family who do not believe baptism is essential. The sacrifice is too great; we will not allow it. We will not allow water to be baptism. It has to mean something else.

Will not God condemn us for our hardness of heart when he has made a thing as clear as this, yet we refuse to accept it? When we prefer spiritual blindness rather than light, what do we think he will say to us in the Day of Judgment?

But now to make the application personal, the question for us all is what will we do in the face of the truth? Do we accept it or deny it? Do we act on it, or do we remain passive and do nothing? What will you say to Jesus on the last day?

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word." (Jesus—John 14:23 NASU)

I do think it would be appropriate to comment before closing to any who hold back from obeying Jesus in the new birth because of a loved one who passed on without going through that birth. Here are some points to consider. (1) Jesus teaches we must love him above father, mother, son, or daughter (Matt. 10:37). (2) If a loved one failed to get to heaven do you think you would be doing them a favor by joining them? Is that what they would want? Read Luke 16:19-31. The rich man in this account did not want his five brothers joining him. (3) Finally, why not leave judgment up to God? "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25 NKJV)

Note: Underlining in verses quoted was by me to emphasize certain statements and was not in the original quoted texts.

The Great Commission and Cornelius

Many people believe that Cornelius was saved the moment the Holy Spirit fell on him. I disagree. The account of his conversion is recorded in Acts 10. It is a topic worthy of discussion.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household before their baptism (Acts 10:47). At its core the issue is whether or not water baptism is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38 and many other passages (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, John 3:5, Mark 16:16). Or, is there some other way way God has designed for man to receive remission of his transgressions?

I want to address something I had overlooked until I was doing some reading where it was brought to my attention. In his preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter said in Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) In the very next verse (verse 44), we are told that "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." (Acts 10:44 NKJV)

I want you to take a closer look at verse 43, three words there that I had overlooked. What were they? The words "through His name." It was pointed out to me that words do have meanings and they are not just written to take up space. "Through His name, whoever believes in Him will have remission of sins." (Acts 10:43 NKJV)

Here is the point: the phrase "through His name" designates a relationship with the name. Meaning what? For that, we have to go back to the Great Commission Jesus gave himself in Matt. 28:18-20. Let me quote that:

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Here is something the reader may not be aware of, a thing easily overlooked. Do you know the word translated "in," where it says "in the name," should correctly be translated by the word "into?" That is to say, the Greek means "into." If you do not believe that, check it out for yourself by getting a New American Standard original edition reference Bible and check the side margin or center column references. If you do not have one, here is what you will find: the exact words, "Lit., into". Lit. means literal, meaning "into" is the literal translation. The original American Standard translation of 1901 used the word "into" in the text itself, as does the more recent Literal Translation of the Bible.

So what is the big deal as I do not want to lose your attention by doing mere word studies? Jesus is teaching that when we are baptized in water, as per Acts 2:38, we are being baptized into a relationship not only with him but also with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Does this comport with other scriptures? Yes, it does. Here are some passages that do not just teach that we are baptized into Christ but specifically state it. (I add that no one doubts that the baptism of the Great Commission is water baptism since man is directed to perform it.)

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) Gal. 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (NKJV) One gets into Christ by water baptism.

Please note what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:13, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (NKJV) Do you know that the word "in" here should be the word "into"? Again, check it out using the references I have already alluded to. The Corinthians were not being baptized into a relationship with Paul, or any other man, but with Christ, and he wanted them to know that.

I think it goes without saying that all agree the Christian has a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures also teach the same relationship with the Father and Jesus. Hear Jesus, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (is baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, a part of the word?--DS); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14:23 NKJV) Jesus again speaks in John 17:20-21, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (NKJV) See also Rom. 8:9-11.

The point I am trying to make is that when we are baptized according to Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, we are put into that relationship with him where he dwells within us, as does the Father, and the Holy Spirit--we in them, they in us. In voluntarily coming into this relationship, we are willingly and gladly bringing ourselves into submission to their authority and receive all the blessings that go along with that.

That the baptism of the Great Commission was water baptism goes without saying, as the command was made to men to do this. Only God, not man, can baptize one in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, those they taught and baptized were to go out and do the same thing ("teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Matt. 28:20 NKJV) and that perpetually down through time. This is the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5 and the baptism that establishes a relationship with Christ.

Now, let us make the application to the case of Cornelius. I quote again Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) So here is the argument. That which we are to receive through his name (remission of sins) is a little hard to receive, is it not, unless and until we have some relationship with that name (with him)? That relationship is granted via way of obedience to the Great Commission, wherein we are baptized into a relationship with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

But, there is more. What did the Great Commission of Jesus in Matt. 28 demand of a man? Two things--faith and baptism. (Matt. 28:19) Disciples were first to be made, from which it is evident that believers were to be made, and then they were to be baptized. Mark 16:16 makes it even clearer. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) I have said before and say again, the problem with denominational teaching on this subject is that the import of what they teach is the same as if Mark 16:16 read, "He who believes and is not baptized will be saved," for they say it is not essential. I believe Jesus' words are clear.

Do I think it was certain that Cornelius would be saved prior to his baptism? If we are talking about God’s foreknowledge, yes, absolutely, just as much as the faithful Old Testament prophets were who were given the Holy Spirit, but neither were saved without the blood of Jesus which we come into contact with via baptism in our dispensation of time, the Christian dispensation. Paul says we are baptized into Christ's death, which is where he shed his blood, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom 6:3 NKJV)

Now, would God place his spirit upon one not yet in a saved condition? He could; none of us would deny his power to do so. Would he do it? Who is to say he would not if he had a purpose in doing so? Might there be a purpose here? What?

The gospel was not being taken to the Gentiles as God intended. Some say as much as 10 years had transpired between that first sermon on the Day of Pentecost and Peter going to Cornelius, a Gentile. Even with Peter, an inspired apostle, it took a direct intervention from God himself to convince him he needed to go and talk with a Gentile about salvation. And, as all Bible students know, he took flak for it from the Jews back in Jerusalem and had to defend himself. What convinced those Jews that it was acceptable? Peter's recounting the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Would they ever have gone on their own to the Gentiles had this not happened?

When God has a purpose, he may give His Spirit to even a vile sinner. Certainly, I do not place Cornelius in any such class, but I do know he needed the blood of Jesus. But, what I have reference to here is the case of one so vile he was a ring leader in the death of Jesus--Caiaphas.

The Bible says, "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation." (John 11:49-51 NKJV)

Do I think the Holy Spirit remained with Caiaphas? Of course not. But, for a short period of time, because God had a purpose, it was given to him. God had a purpose in giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his household. He accomplished that purpose. The Holy Spirit was not given to Cornelius to save him, nor was it given to him because he was already saved. Like everyone else, Cornelius had to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, and that included being baptized for the remission of sins, or as Jesus put it, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) He did not say “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” as so many seem to proclaim.

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

 

The Conversion of Lydia

In Acts 16:13-15 we find the account of the conversion of Lydia in the city of Philippi. This is a very interesting conversion account and one that men have debated as to what actually happened. It is a short account so let us read it and see if there is anything to debate or to cause controversy.

"And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. (Acts 16:13 NAS77)

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14 NAS77)

And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:15 NAS77)"

Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as you recall, entered the city of Philippi to preach the gospel. Their first opportunity, as far as we can tell, is to a group of women out at the riverside at a gathering place for prayer. Lydia was one of the women assembled there.

The first mystery to some people is found in the statement in verse 14 where it is said that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Well, how did the Lord do that? Did God take a kind of spiritual crowbar to her heart and force it open? Did the Holy Spirit come upon her in some mysterious operation, taking over her will and making her receptive to the gospel as Paul preached it? Some think so. The reality is there is no truth to such suppositions, as will soon be shown.

God opened Lydia's heart to the gospel simply by the preaching of the word. How do I know? That is a fair question. If God acted miraculously on the heart of Lydia, resulting in a sort of forced conversion, one of which she had no way of resisting, and God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34 KJV), shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25), and teaches us that it is a sin to show partiality (James 2:9), then God did the very thing in converting Lydia that he says, through his word, that he does not do and that he condemns in us. None of us believe that.

Lydia's heart was opened by God's word in the same natural way yours and mine are. For example, all of us have read passages in the Bible that condemn us for something we have done at one time or another, resulting in a pang of guilt and sorrow within us. Is that the Holy Spirit acting miraculously on my heart, or is it the power of the word of God upon a man's heart? Yes, it is the Spirit working, but working through the word, not miraculously separate and apart from the word. We retain the free will to either believe what we read, thus allowing it to touch our hearts, or the free will to pass it off and reject it.

Our hearts are left free to choose either for or against the gospel, thus we can be fairly condemned for choosing to reject it. If it was otherwise, how could it be said that God was fair to all? In conversion, God treats all the same and does not play favorites.

But I want to make a note here about Paul's preaching that day. In other articles I have written, I have tried to show that in first-century accounts of gospel preaching, all men who preached taught the same thing with the same results among those who believed. Whether it was Peter, Philip, or Ananias doing the preaching, and now Paul, the result was that in every case where the preaching was believed the result was that believers were baptized. When we believe the words of Peter, preaching by inspiration, in Acts 2:38, we readily see why that was the case.

What did Paul preach to Lydia? We all agree he taught the fundamentals of the Christian faith. With Paul, as with the other evangelists of his day, that included baptism for the remission of sins. The text says Lydia was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:15), but when did she do this and why? The verse before, verse 14, tells us that she was responding "to the things spoken by Paul." (NAS)

Paul preached to her the gospel. Paul preached baptism because Lydia was baptized in response to the things spoken by Paul (verse 14). Baptism then is a part of the gospel. The gospel cannot be preached without baptism being preached. We see it preached by Peter, by Philip, by Ananias, and now by Paul.

Some might respond by saying in earlier accounts, found in earlier chapters of Paul's missionary efforts, accounts are given where baptism is not mentioned—passages like Acts 13:12, 13:39, 48, and Acts 14:1, 14:21. The reader ought to take into account two things regarding such passages.

(1) They are summary statements of what happened and not detailed accounts of conversion. For example, Acts 14:21 simply says they "made many disciples." There is no attempt to say how that was done. Acts 13:39 says, "Everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (NAS) True, but what is not stated is what is to be believed. In Acts 13:48 the text says "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NAS) Believed what? If they believed what Paul preached, then they believed, among other things, that they must be baptized. But the point is that such passages are just summary statements without details being provided.

Let the reader ask himself this question. None of these accounts mention a word about repentance, nor should they, given the fact they are, as has been stated, summary statements. Do we believe that there is such a thing as salvation by faith without any repentance of sins? Again, when it is simply stated that people believed, it is a summary of what took place and not a detailed account of everything they believed and believed to the point of obedience.

If we were studying the subject of biblical hermeneutics, we would say the word "believed," when used in such passages as we have been talking about, is used as a figure of speech called a "synecdoche." A synecdoche is "a figure of speech by which we speak of the whole by a part." (Hermeneutics, by D. R. Dungan, page 300) As Dungan says, "This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners. The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one. Generally the first one is mentioned—that of faith—because without it nothing else could follow." (page 305)

In more detailed accounts we know what was preached and what was believed by what was done. Lydia was baptized because the text says she was responding to what was preached, and Paul was the preacher.

(2) Paul preached the same gospel wherever he went, not one thing in one place and something else in another. If you can find what he preached once, you know he always taught the same thing elsewhere. Paul says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8 NAS) Paul did not preach different things in different places when it came to the gospel. If he preached baptism to Lydia, he preached the same wherever he went, and we know he preached it to her.

If Paul did not believe baptism for the remission of sins was essential to gospel obedience (and thus salvation), then please tell me how he could have written what he did in passages such as Rom. 6:3-4 and Gal. 3:26-27. Tell me why, when Ananias told him "now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16 NAS), Paul did not object and respond to Ananias along the line of "now look here Ananias, I know you have the Spirit of God, but the minute I met Jesus on the road I believed and was saved, and so both you and the Spirit are in error. I need not be baptized to wash away any sins, for they were forgiven me when Jesus appeared to me and I first believed." Why did he not respond that way?

It astounds me that people can claim to be saved by faith, apart from baptism, given the fact their claim to believe is fraudulent. How can I believe in Jesus and yet deny what he taught? Jesus taught both personally on the subject of baptism (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15-16, John 3:5) and through his Holy Spirit-inspired apostles and prophets. Believe in him, just not in what he has said, and you will be saved, seems to be the idea. What! How does that work? Someone needs to explain that.

What does it mean to be faithful to God as a new convert? Lydia says, as a new convert speaking to Paul and his party, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." (Acts 16:15 NAS) That they did, because they judged her, as she says, as one who was faithful to the Lord.

What did she do to become faithful? She believed what Paul preached (including baptism) and responded to it by acting upon it. If one wants to become faithful to the Lord, they need to do what she did, assuming they have not already done so. Would she have been judged faithful if she had not been baptized? Think about that long and hard. Paul taught it. Let us say she refused to do it. Would she then have been judged to be faithful?

One final fact about Lydia's conversion that has caused trouble is that the text says "she and her household" were baptized (Acts 16:15 NAS). The thought is that this means she and her young children, maybe including infants. It is easily seen that infants were not baptized, for the simple reason that baptism is of no value to one who is not a sinner, as its purpose is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and infants have no sin. They are safe in the arms of God as is.

But there is another point as well confirming there was no infant baptism or baptism of very young children. Baptism saves only when accompanied by faith (Mark 16:16), for it is "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (NAS77) It is not "he who is too young to believe and is baptized shall be saved." Baptism, isolated from faith and repentance, has no inherent power to save.

For those who want to believe there were infants in that household who were saved along with Lydia, bear in mind, remember, if so they were saved without faith. Can one be saved without faith? "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Heb. 11:6 NKJV)

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Baptized For The Dead

 In 1 Cor. 15:29 Paul says, “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” (NKJV)  It is said by commentators that there is broad disagreement over the meaning of the phrase “baptized for the dead.”  No doubt this is true.  But the point to be made in this article is that we are always looking at this passage wondering who the dead were and what the meaning is but in doing so we overlook the obvious lesson.  

Taking the verse as a whole I have no doubt that baptism (or baptized) is a reference to water baptism for the remission of sins.  Why do I say that?  In the very first chapter of First Corinthians Paul begins a discussion of the divisions in the church at Corinth, a church he established.  To show the brethren the error they were following in dividing up into followers of men he says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.” (1 Cor. 1:13-15 NKJV) 

This does not mean that only a few of those whom Paul converted in Corinth were baptized, not at all.  Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 and it is said there that “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Act 18:8 NKJV)  What were the Corinthians hearing? 

They were hearing the entire gospel message, “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15:3-4 NKJV)  They were hearing what was demanded of them to do—believe the message preached, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. 

Paul established the church at Corinth.  He is the one doing the preaching.  He is the one Ananias spoke to in Acts 22:16 saying, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (NKJV)  Is Paul who had to be baptized to wash away his sins, according to Ananias’ command, going to then turn around and tell the Corinthians, "Yes, I had to be baptized to wash away my sins but you don’t?"  Why are many of the Corinthians being baptized under Paul’s preaching? (Acts 18:8)  To ask is to answer. 

But, there is even more.  In 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Paul gives a list of some sins and then says in the next verse, “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 our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV)  Does the word “washed” here remind you of the word “wash” as in “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), the words of Ananias to Paul when he was yet known as Saul?  So the church at Corinth, meaning each Christian in it, had been washed of their sins the same way Paul himself had been in the waters of baptism (the place where the blood of Jesus is contacted spiritually). 

Every Christian in Corinth, as were all in the first century, was baptized into Christ.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  That being the case, the truth, it necessarily follows that “as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have not put on Christ.”  If one is true the other has to be as well. 

But, we do not have to reason our way into getting the Corinthians baptized.  Paul tells us specifically.  “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  He is writing to the Corinthians.  He uses the word “all.”  This is not a passage about Holy Spirit baptism which only the apostles received as far as we are told.  It is the Spirit that taught the Corinthians the need to be baptized; it was the Holy Spirit, within the inspired apostle, teaching truth, which would lead men and women to desire to be baptized and to do it. 

What does all of this have to do with 1 Cor. 15:29 and the baptism for the dead?  A lot.  As Paul spoke to the Corinthians through his writing he was speaking to them of that which they knew--baptism for the remission of sins--and that which they had done. 

1 Cor. 15:29 shows beyond any doubt that the Corinthians had been taught and firmly believed that baptism was essential to salvation or else why be baptized for the dead?  If baptism is a meaningless thing, only a symbol or sign, then why be bothered with it at Corinth or anywhere else whether for the living or the dead?  

[If you wish to download this article to save it to your computer or to print it out click here.]