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.]

Philip Preaching the Gospel in Samaria

 "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (Acts 8:12 NAS)

Most people with an elementary knowledge of the scriptures understand that the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.   If one wants to learn what one must do to be saved from sin it is a great place to start. This sermon was the first ever preached after Jesus’ resurrection and return to heaven where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father.   His blood had now been shed for the remission of the sins of man.  Full forgiveness was now possible.

After Peter’s preaching Jesus on that day of Pentecost, having made believers of approximately 3,000 souls, Peter exhorted them to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 NAS)   What was required for their salvation that day?   Faith, repentance, and baptism.

Who was saved that Day of Pentecost?   The text tells us, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41 NAS)  Who was saved?  Was it those who believed the word only?  Or, was it those who heard the word and acted on it, who repented and were baptized?  To ask is to answer.

We find a similar account in Acts 8 but this time a different Holy Spirit inspired preacher, Philip the Evangelist.  Here we see Philip preaching in the city of Samaria and the text tells us he “began proclaiming Christ to them.” (Acts 8:5 NAS) But, now watch what happened.  “When they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” (Acts 8:12 NAS)`

The Acts 8:12 passage parallels Acts 2:41.  What was the good news Philip preached?   Was it the gospel Peter preached?  Was it “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16 NAS)?  I am sure we can all agree on this.

The text says "they believed Philip" (Acts 8:12) with regard to what he was preaching.  This is the equivalent of "those who had received his word" with reference to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41.  When they believed Philip what did they do?  The text says "they were being baptized."  In Acts 2:41 when they received Peter's word what did they do?  They were baptized.   Thus we see that in the beginning of the church, of Christianity, of faith in Christ, that when the gospel was preached and believed or received it led to people being baptized.  There has to be a reason for that.

Is baptism a part of the gospel?  Is it a part of the good news?   It is if it is "for the forgiveness of your sins" as per Acts 2:38.  It is if Peter preached it.  It is if Philip preached it.  It is if these two Holy Spirit inspired men preached it.  It is if it is a part of God’s means of saving people, a part of God’s plan.  Saying this is not discounting faith in any way.   It is only those who first believe who benefit by baptism.   Baptism is the obedience of faith.   It is what a scriptural faith leads to.

Only when one receives the word, the gospel, only when one believes, is he baptized.  Those who did not receive the word did not believe it, were not baptized.  This pretty much tells us who has believed the gospel and who has disbelieved it.  If you believe something else, something other than the gospel, you are not baptized.  We ought to consider that seriously.

We know in both cases baptism was preached for how else were people led to be baptized? What led Philip's audience to be baptized if Philip did not preach it?  Where did they learn about baptism if he did not preach it?   Why were people baptized on the day of Pentecost under Peter's preaching if he did not preach it?  But, we do not have to guess about Peter's preaching for Peter's words were "repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS)

I am reminded of those living in the lifetime of John the Baptist who rejected John’s baptism. The Bible says, “But, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30 NAS)   We now live under King Jesus who has a baptism of his own for mankind.   Are we going to reject it?  Is not the baptism Jesus gives us God’s purpose for us?

If you have never been baptized for the remission of sins you are in a fight against God.   Don't be one of those who insist on being saved your way rather than the way taught by Peter and Philip, by the Holy Spirit.   You cannot win in a fight against God.   It is his narrow gate or the wide gate and the gate you enter makes all the difference (Matt. 7:13-14).  You cannot become a child of God by disobedience, by ignoring his word, by doing it the way my group believes. God only has one group--those who have done it his way.  It is "the Way."   The way of salvation.

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

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland on the road to Gaza and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (Isa. 53:7-8– DS) he preached Jesus to him.  And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached baptism was preached as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner.  When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized.  The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him it?  Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Without the remission of one’s sins a person cannot be saved.  

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS).  Here in Acts 8:35-36, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism.  This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him." 

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching - first Peter and now Philip.  In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached.  They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it.  Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted.  Which do you believe?

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

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3.”  I would refer the reader to that article first before reading this one.  It can be found on this site.  I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

The thrust of that prior article was that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that a person must do to have his/her sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) is the same thing he preached in his second sermon (Acts 3:19).

Here are the two passages side by side.

Acts 2:38	Acts 3:19
Repent	Repent
Be Baptized	Be Converted (NKJV) Return (NAS)
For The Remission of Sins	Sins Blotted Out

One can easily see the parallels.  However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, “be converted” (NKJV), “return” (NAS), “turn back” (CSB), “turn again” (ESV) rather than “be baptized” as in Acts 2:38.  How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin?  One must also remember Peter was speaking not from himself but through the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it.  The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that.  Why not?  If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins, is the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit going to tell a different group there is another way?

This was preaching that was interrupted, the preacher was taken into custody “as they spoke.” (Acts 4:1 NKJV)  There was to be no opportunity for baptism on that occasion.  The preaching began somewhat late in the day for it was around the hour of prayer which was 3 o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 3:1) when the lame man was healed by Peter.  The preaching began after a crowd gathered as a result of that.  We are also told after Peter and John were taken into custody and jailed they were held over until the next day for it was already evening (Acts 4:3).

This was not a long preaching event nor was there an opportunity for baptizing then and there.  This sermon made believers, about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).  Certainly, Peter and John could not have baptized 5,000 men alone.  They could have gotten help but that would have taken time and they were alone at the temple.

(Commentators are uncertain whether the number 5,000 in Acts 4 represents 5,000 new believers or is the total number of believers from the Day of Pentecost up through this day in the aggregate.  For our purposes, it does not matter, in either case it would still leave Peter and John with more to baptize than they could baptize alone.  If you take the 3,000 converts from the Day of Pentecost from the 5,000 here that would still leave the two of them with 1,000 each to baptize.  We will proceed as though the 5,000 were new disciples.)

Does this mean the 5,000 believers were not baptized?  Not at all.  It only means not on that evening by Peter and John.  We already have 3,000 baptized brethren in Jerusalem from the Day of Pentecost sermon and the twelve apostles plus others for “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) and who can say how many of them there were.

It was not going to be hard for the 5,000 to find out what was involved in being converted or turning back to the Lord.  The apostles had become well known in Jerusalem due to the miracles that had been done.  “Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Acts 2:43 NKJV)  Peter had the opportunity to preach in Acts 3 because he had just worked a miracle.  This day was not going to be the last opportunity for these believers to consult Peter or the other apostles or converts.  Where would you find them?  Generally, near the temple.  They would not be hard to find.

And, add to that fact, it is likely some or many of these 5,000 had already heard of what had happened and been taught and done on the Day of Pentecost.  Perhaps some had even been present and while not converted that day had impressions made on their hearts and minds going back to that time.  If so they likely knew baptism was a requirement for turning back to the Lord and likely knew where they could go to accomplish that.  When we want something done in our day we know where to go to get it done or how to find out how to get it done.  They would have been no different.

No doubt they were anxious to have their sins forgiven for Peter had earlier in his speech convicted them of their guilt in having Christ crucified (see Acts 3:13-15).  Peter also tells them, “Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.”(Acts 3:23 NKJV)  This is motivating speech.  A man must get right with God.  When a man is motivated enough he will seek out the ways and means of salvation.

If one believes the preaching of the apostles was inspired then one is saying the Holy Spirit was the one speaking, speaking through the apostles.  The Holy Spirit is God.  I think it probable, simply speculation here on my part and to be taken as such, that the reason Peter was not more specific on baptism in Acts 3:19 was because the Holy Spirit knew what the circumstances of that occasion were – no opportunity for immediate baptism.

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized.  “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.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity.  Peter was not an anti-Christ.  We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed.  Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

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

 

 

 

  

Is Denominational Baptism Scriptural

Many different baptisms are being performed today by religious people, using different methods and modes and for different purposes.  However, the only baptism that I as an individual facing eternity ought to be concerned with is the baptism that Jesus spoke of when he said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

This is the baptism of the Great Commission when Jesus told the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (literally “into”—see NAS reference note—DS) 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.” (Matt. 28:19-20 NKJV)  This is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of in Eph. 4:5 that places one in Christ (Gal. 3:27) where salvation is found (2 Tim. 2:10).  It is therefore spoken of as being “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and is a baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) of which he is the “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV), the body being the church (Eph. 1:22-23). 

It is a baptism you are required to teach for the Great Commission that was given to the apostles was that they teach those they had made disciples of and baptized to go and do the same thing teaching and baptizing others. (Matt. 28:20)  This continual handing down of the teaching and practice from one generation to another is to last as long as the Great Commission remains in effect--until the day of Christ’s return.  It is the one and only scriptural baptism that was to last for all generations.

While the baptism we have just discussed is the only one a man or woman needs to be personally concerned about the truth is man has come up with his own inventions thus we have differences in baptisms today.  Solomon said, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” (Eccl. 7:29 NKJV)  Human nature never changed and so it is today as it was back then.

The first invention of man, relating to baptism, was the idea that he could sprinkle men and call it baptism and put his man-made invention on an equal plain with the baptism of the Great Commission.  Man can try it and use that procedure and pay for his error in the end.  God never gave man the authority to change the meaning of his inspired word or to add to it.  “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.” (1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV)

The words baptize, baptism, etc., found in your New Testament were words from the Greek carried over into the English without ever being translated.  We call them transliterated words.  Why were these Greek words never translated?  Because the Greek means to submerge, immerse, to dip.  By the time the Bible was being translated into English men had already become wedded to their invention--sprinkling and calling it baptism.  To translate the word accurately using the word immerse would end their deception for any capable of reading.  Sprinkling for baptism was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1311 A.D. at the Council of Revenna hundreds of years after no apostles were around to object.

Vine’s “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” a standard work, says of the word baptism, “consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence.”  I encourage the reader to do a Google search or use any other computer search engine and do their own research.  Type into your search engine the keywords “transliterated +baptism” minus the quotes.  Read and learn.

Paul says, “We were buried with him through baptism.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV)  He was talking to people who had been buried in water, not sprinkled or poured, for baptism was a burial. Sprinkling and pouring are not only frauds but also exceedingly dangerous in that many who know no better believe they have been scripturally baptized.  It would only be scriptural if one could change the meaning of God’s word.  Wise people will not do that, not if they have read scriptures concerning those who would do so.

Scriptural baptism is immersion and immersion only but many denominations do practice immersion and are still in error on the subject of baptism.  How so?  They are in error on the meaning or purpose of baptism.

Let me ask a question that will help clarify.  If I dive off a diving board or someone pushes me into a swimming pool or a lake and I end up immersed is that a scriptural baptism?  If young children were in a backyard pool playing church and one immerses the other would that be a scriptural baptism?  We would all say no to both but why so?  It would be because baptism is about more than just being immersed in water.  There has to be understanding, purpose, and heart behind it of such a nature that will make it pleasing to God.

God has told us if we will accept it exactly what the purpose of baptism is and what it accomplishes.  Acts 2:38 tells us what we need to know about the purpose of baptism but how many believe what they read there today?  Not many.  Man came along generations later and began denying what Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said in that sermon recorded in Acts 2 and gave baptism a different purpose and meaning to suit themselves and then said “God is pleased.”  When one changes an ordinance of God and gives it an entirely different meaning than he gave it then it is a little presumptuous to just assume he is pleased.  What we have done is set ourselves up as God, displaced God as the lawgiver, and said this is now what this ordinance is going to mean.    We now decide.  He does not.

I do not know of a denomination that believes one must be baptized either for the remission of sins or to enter Christ (which is essentially the same thing) although there may be a few that do.  Generally speaking, they believe one is saved by faith with or without baptism and prior to baptism.  It is to them either a symbolic act or, in some cases, the means of entrance into their denomination.  In the latter case, there is a world of difference between entering a denomination (which they admit is not the body of Christ but only a segment of it) and entering the body of Christ, the church he established.  What denomination was Lydia a member of?  Lydia had it right, denominationalism has it wrong. 

Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and thus already in Christ’s church baptized to get into a denomination?  There were no denominations in New Testament times.  Not a single person in the New Testament was ever baptized to enter into a denomination so why do it now?  Certainly, this kind of baptism is not scriptural for as I have said it was impossible to do such a thing in New Testament times thus baptism was never designed for that purpose.

For those who believe they are saved by faith alone apart from baptism passages like 1 Cor. 12:13 become meaningless, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  It becomes meaningless for that is the very thing a saved by faith-alone advocate must deny.  He must deny that “we were all baptized into one body.”  His point of view is that he was already in the body (Christ’s body and thus saved) before and without baptism.

Salvation is in the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, 1:22-23).  You are baptized into that body (1 Cor. 12:13) but the saved by faith alone man must claim to have gotten into that body some other way since he claims to be saved without being baptized into the body of Christ.  It logically follows then that his baptism, since he feels it does not put him into the body of Christ, must be to put him into a denomination of which the New Testament knows nothing or else be merely symbolic since it is not a baptism into Christ.

If one is baptized only as a symbolic gesture much of what has just been said applies as well.  Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and is thus already in Christ’s church baptized as a symbolic gesture?  When did God command man to be baptized as a “symbolic gesture?”  My Bible does not say anything about “symbolic gestures.”  If someone would grab a concordance and look up the word “symbol” or “symbols” or “gestures” it might help but when I tried it I only got one hit on the word “symbol” and it related to the head covering in 1 Cor. 11.  I also tried the word “sign” and the word “figure” and came up dry as well.

The old King James does use the word “figure” in 1 Peter 3:21 related to baptism but it does not help those who want baptism to be just a figure for it says, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” and that is not the figure those who promote denominational baptism are wanting.  The bottom line is that all of this business about baptism being just a symbol is not found in my Bible or yours but only in the minds of men who have wandered from the truth.  It is a baptism that has no scriptural meaning and is an invention of men who want some changes in the Bible so it will read more to their liking.

Whether one views baptism as a passageway to enter a denominational church, to gain membership in it, or as just a symbol both are inventions of men and worthless as far as the Bible is concerned.  If you were baptized for either reason you were simply immersed like a man diving from a diving board (that is if you were immersed at all).

But the objection is made that I did it to obey God.  How can you obey God when you do a thing he has not commanded?  He never commanded you to be baptized into a denomination (obviously since they did not exist back then) nor did he ever command you to be baptized as a symbol for anything.  He did command you to be baptized for a specific set of purposes none of which are found in denominational baptism. 

One cannot accidentally obey God.  Let me explain.  If I was to partake of the Lord’s Supper without knowing the meaning of it could it be truly said I worshipped God in that act in a way pleasing to him?  We would all say of course not.  So it is with baptism.  To obey God you have to know what you are doing and why and desire to do it for the reasons he said.  One is to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7) and faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17).  We cannot walk blindly without knowing what we are doing and think we might just get lucky and do the right thing by accident.  There is no such thing as obedience in that type of action.

Finally, and this is important, when a person presents himself to be baptized with denominational baptism there are certain beliefs assumed by the body or congregation about him and what he believes.  By presenting himself to them as a candidate for their baptism he is assenting to their set of beliefs about what is happening in that procedure.  You are saying by your actions that you are doing this either to enter that denomination or as a symbolic gesture--whatever they teach.  If you did not assent to that and told them chances are they would not baptize you.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that certain things will be said during the baptismal ceremony about what is being done and why.  If you hold your silence you are assenting that you too accept those things.  If you do not agree and hold your silence (you are being baptized for some other reason than what the group holds to be the truth) then you deceive those around you.  Can a deceiver in the act of deceiving be scripturally baptized?

The bottom line is this--in presenting one’s self for denominational baptism one either believes the wrong things about baptism giving it an unscriptural meaning and application or else he believes correctly but deceives all around him into thinking he is going along with their erroneous beliefs about the subject and its results.

Say, for example, I believe baptism is for just what the Bible teaches and says it is--for the remission of sins, to place one into Christ, to place one in his body the church.  However, the denominational group I am associated with believes all that to be true by faith without baptism and believes that baptism is just a symbol of salvation already achieved.  I allow myself to be baptized by them never uttering a word of dissent to their belief or to what they say at the baptismal ceremony.  Have I deceived them?

Why bring this up?  Because years down the road after the fact there are those who learn the truth about baptism and need to be baptized scripturally but they look back some decades earlier and deceive themselves into thinking that way back when 30 - 40 years ago when they were baptized it was for the right purpose.  If it was for the right purpose those decades ago they deceived those baptizing them and being a deceiver is not a good way to go to judgment day.

Furthermore, we all learn the truth gradually, not all at once.  Minds are changed and/or brought to the truth gradually over time bit by bit.  This article will change no one’s opinion but it might be one straw that if other straws are added later will gradually change a mind given enough time which might be years.  Because this process is so gradual by the time we have finally come around a full 180 degrees in our thinking we look back and cannot remember a time when we did not think as we do now.  There is great danger in this.

Because of it we may never obey the truth, never be scripturally baptized, and thus never enter the church of which Jesus is the Savior, because we cannot remember the truth of our thinking and motives at the time years earlier when we first were immersed.  We tell ourselves we thought back then the way we think now thus we do nothing to change our state.  Denominational baptism ends up sinking another ship.  There is but one scriptural baptism and denominational baptism is not it. 

The purpose of this article has not been to be a wrecking ball but before one can build in a location already occupied the old structure must first be torn down.  Denominational baptism is an old structure that needs tearing down so that the truth can be built in the location that old structure once occupied.

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