The Faith of Enoch

The Bible tells us that, "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God." (Heb. 11:5 NAS) Enoch and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) were the only two men to never die a physical death. Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven after a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated him from Elisha, his traveling companion and the one appointed to take his place as a prophet of God. Of Enoch, we only know that the Bible says he was taken up. How we are not told.

Very little is known about Enoch and his life. We know he was the father of Methuselah (Gen. 5:21), the oldest man to have lived, as far as we know, who died at the age of 969 (Gen. 5:27), and that he was the great-grandfather of Noah (see Gen. 5:21-29). We also know that Enoch was a prophet of God in the seventh generation from Adam (Jude 14) and that he is found in the genealogy of Christ on Joseph's side in Luke 3 (see Luke 3:23-38, especially verse 37). So little is known about Enoch that we can quote all the Bible has to say about him in the short passages that follow, along with the passage quoted above.

"And Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." (Gen. 5:21-24 NAS)

"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.'" (Jude 14-15 NAS)

What can we learn from these passages? To be more specific, what can we learn about the faith of Enoch? The answer is more than is first apparent.

The Hebrew writer in Heb. 11:5 tells us, "by faith Enoch was taken up." (NAS) Paul tells us, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV) The NAS (New American Standard) translation has "word of Christ" here rather than "word of God" but it is hard to see that that makes any difference since Jesus is the Word (see John 1:1, 14) and the Word was God (John 1:1). Enoch's faith then had to be, as does that of all men, based on God's word. By that, I mean he had to have heard from God to have faith (Rom. 10:17).

We do not know how much God communicated his will to those of ancient times, pre-flood days in the case of Enoch, but we know enough to know from Rom. 1:18-21 that man was "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20 NAS) as it relates to sin, and we know man was sinning. Man had grown wicked in pre-flood days. "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5 NAS)

Read in context it is clear that Enoch's prophecy, as recorded in Jude 14 and 15, was applicable not just to the people of his day but for all people from his time forward until Judgment Day. When the Lord comes again he is going to execute judgment "upon all," which is exactly what the text says, and he is going to convict "all the ungodly" regardless of when they lived.

Mankind had enough knowledge of God in Enoch's time, and before and afterwards, to live in a way that would please God. Enoch, being a prophet, was an inspired man. God used prophets in those early days to communicate his will to early man, at least in part. Luke 1:70 and Acts 3:21 both indicate that there have been prophets since the beginning of time (see KJV or NKJV, see also Luke 11:50 in any version). If you read Luke 11:49-51, you see Abel listed as a prophet, which is easily overlooked.

Enoch knew God's will. He heard the words of God and spoke them as a prophet. His faith was in God by means of what God spoke to him which is to say, as Paul said, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV) God spoke, and Enoch believed. Without word from God, Enoch could only have known that God existed, that he had great power, knowledge, and understanding.

But we can learn even more from the few scriptures we have on Enoch. It is said Enoch pleased God (Heb. 11:5) and Enoch "walked with God" (Gen. 5:24 NASU).  To please God, one must walk with God. How does one do that? The Bible tells us that Zacharias and Elizabeth, his wife, the parents of John the Baptist, "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." (Luke 1:6 NASU) Zacharias and Elizabeth lived under the Law of Moses, Enoch did not. That aside, how could Enoch please God the way he did and walk with God, which the Bible says he did, unless he obeyed the commands God gave him just as Zacharias and Elizabeth did?

Someone might object and say he walked by faith. Certainly, he did but how does one walk by faith? Is it possible for a man to walk by faith while actively and willfully disobeying God’s word? I cannot walk with God unless I have determined to go down the road he leads me down. If on that road he says stop (gives a command) I must obey. If he says turn right I must turn right. If he says slow down I must slow down. In other words, I cannot walk with God if I do not allow him to lead me and I follow along in accord with his directions, or put another way, in accord with “his commands.”

Faith in God, the Old Testament often calls this trust, manifests itself in obedience. Years after Enoch the children of Israel were given the Promised Land but the generation who were originally set to receive it, those who came out of Egyptian bondage led by Moses, were not able to enter in, and why not? Because they were not willing to obey and enter and fight for the land, even with God assuring them of victory. And why were they not willing? Because of a lack of faith.

"And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief." (Heb. 3:18-19 NAS) If you turn to this passage and read it in context you see clearly that this is a direct reference to the children of Israel and their failure to enter into the Promised Land. The passage teaches us that faith would have led to obedience, just as a lack of faith (unbelief) led to disobedience. So what is the point? It is this--faith and obedience to God's commands cannot be separated.

When one is unwilling to obey God, or just is negligent in doing so, it is a manifestation of a lack of what the Bible calls faith or belief. If we truly believed strongly enough that God said what he meant and meant what he said, we would not be hesitant to obey but would obey readily and promptly. In doing so we would be walking with God and pleasing God as Enoch did.

Much of Christendom is today guilty of disbelief while calling it faith. Faith is more than just what is in your mind. The faith that leads to one's salvation is coupled with obedience and cannot be uncoupled. You obey because you believe, you disobey because you disbelieve, or just do not believe strongly enough to obey.

Now, what is it that must be believed if one is to walk with God? Eve believed the serpent's lie, his deception. One cannot just believe anything and everything. The apostle John, in 2 John 4, tells us what we need to believe. "I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father." (2 John 1:4 NASU) One must believe the truth if one is to walk in the truth, as John says we are commanded to do; thus, what must be believed is the truth.

Why will men perish? The answer is "because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10 NASU) Jesus, in his John 17 prayer to the Father, said, "Thy word is truth." (John 17:17 KJV) When the Bible says Enoch walked with God do you think he walked in truth? He walked by God’s word.

John says just a little later, "And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments." (2 John 1:6 NASU) Do you think Enoch walked with God without walking according to the commandments God gave him? Do you think it would even be possible to walk with God without walking according to his commandments? Does not this passage teach that without commandment keeping there is no love? Many complain that strictness in commandment keeping is legalism, an attempt to be saved by works. John teaches that it is love. “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NAS)

The point is not that Enoch was a perfect commandment keeper or law keeper for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23 NASU) and "there is none righteous, not even one." (Rom. 3:10 NASU) The point is that one cannot walk with God, or walk or live by faith, without believing enough in God to believe he knows best, better than you or me, and thus trust him enough to make a genuine good faith effort to obey him thus manifesting our faith in him. It is simply letting God be God, letting him be the ruler and taking our rightful place as bond servants of his. We obey because our faith leads us to that. Only then has God become in our hearts the God that lives in the heart. Only then does he rule within us.

So the truth is we can know quite a bit more about Enoch and his faith than what first appears to be the case. We too ought to try and please God and walk with God just as Enoch did lest we fall into the camp of those he prophesied against--the ungodly who do ungodly deeds, or put another way, the disobedient.

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

The Silence of the Scriptures

 From a book entitled A Short History of Christianity by Stephen Tomkins I quote as follows:  "The basic difference between Zwingli and Luther was in their attitudes to the Bible.  Zwingli saw it as a precise blueprint for church life.  For Luther, what is not forbidden is permitted; for Zwingli, what is not permitted is forbidden." (page 141)  Both Zwingli and Luther lived in the Age of Reformation, often referred to as the Protestant Reformation, and both men were leading figures in its beginnings.

The subject of this article is the issue that separated Luther from Zwingli, namely, the silence of the scriptures.  While I will be concentrating primarily on issues related to worship practices in this article the principles enunciated extend beyond what happens inside the doors where we meet for worship weekly.  Does the silence of the scriptures permit a practice or forbid it in Christianity?

This can only be answered by an appeal to the scriptures to which we will go but before doing so it would be good to make the point that some have answered this question without an appeal to scripture at all.  Authority within the Roman Catholic Church, for example, resides in the church itself, the Magisterium, not in scripture.  However, I suppose, if one was forced to put them in either Luther’s camp or Zwingli’s camp they would have to be placed with Luther.

When one takes the position Luther took one cannot complain too much, and be consistent, about wild innovations in the church.  If what is not forbidden is permitted then pretty much anything goes.  On what basis could you forbid it? 

But what do the scriptures teach for those desiring to know?  If there was only one passage one could use to settle this debate as it relates to worship it would be for me John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NKJV)  It is easy to overlook a very important word in this passage, the word "must."  That means neither you nor I have any choice in the matter.  It is we "must."  It is the only worship God will accept, that which is in spirit and truth, or else the word "must" is a word without meaning.

We know what is meant when we are told we must worship in spirit.  I think we all agree about the meaning of that part of the passage.  That leaves only the word truth and the question about that only revolves around what is truth, where it’s found, and how you can know it.  The Bible tells us. 

"Truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NKJV)  Whatever Jesus spoke was "truth."  In prayer to the Father, Jesus said, in John 17:17, "Your word is truth." (NKJV)  The words Jesus spoke, whatever, wherever, to whomever were truth.  He spoke the words the Father had given him.  Hear Jesus, “I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said.”  (John 12:49 CSB)  And, again, “I speak just as the Father has told me.” (John 12:50 CSB)

All the words of the New Testament, red letter or not, are the words of Jesus, the words of God the Father, the words of truth.  After Jesus’ death and ascension, when the Holy Spirit was given to men, the Holy Spirit did not speak independently of Jesus and the Father.  Jesus referred to the Spirit calling him “the Spirit of truth.” (John 14:17, 15:26 NKJV)

Jesus further speaking of the Holy Spirit said, “He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.  He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.  All things that the Father has are Mine.  Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John16:13-15 NKJV)

To worship in truth, then, involves worshiping by the word of God.  That means, and it seems so obvious that I do not see how men overlook it, that if there is no word from God there is no truth in matters religious.  If God has not spoken on a practice how does man practice that thing, whatever it be, and say he is worshiping in truth?

Additionally, how can we have faith in a worship practice if there is no word from God when “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom.10:17 NKJV)  And, again, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Col. 3:17 NKJV)  If there is no word from Jesus (God) how do you practice an activity in worship “in the name of the Lord Jesus”?  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are doing it in our own name.

There is such a thing as the teachings of men.  Listen to Jesus again, "Hypocrites!  Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: …'And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' " (Matt. 15:7-9 NKJV)  Paul says in Titus we are to not give heed "to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14 NKJV)  A worship practice that does not have a book, chapter, and verse for it in God’s word is a commandment of men, an invention of men, and is certainly not worship in truth for if it was book, chapter, and verse could be provided.

Now I know many are with Luther on this—if a practice or act is not specifically forbidden then it’s permitted.  If he was right then truth, God’s word, does not matter and one can on his own authority, manmade and man-given, institute worship according to one's desire.

Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians regarding the Lord's Supper provides further evidence that what is not clearly revealed in scripture is prohibited.  The Corinthians had been taught about the Lord's Supper or else they would not have been observing it, correctly or incorrectly.  Furthermore, Paul comes right out and tells us they had been taught when he says, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you." (1 Cor. 11:23 NKJV)  That is past tense.  Since he had last met with them they had obviously made some changes in the way they were partaking of the supper.  I ask—on whose authority did they do so? 

Note the principle Paul is establishing.  He is telling the Corinthians to do what you are told to do by inspiration and do not make changes, or additions, or subtractions.  To do so is to change the word of God and is to go outside of truth for one's worship.

In the book of Deuteronomy, we find Moses addressing the children of Israel, acting as God's spokesperson.  Hear what he has to say, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2 NKJV)  Upon what evidence do you think that principle has changed today?  Do you think that today God does not mind us adding to his word or taking from it?

We recognize the principle of silence being prohibitive in human wills and legal documents.  Why do we not recognize the same principle in the last will and testament of our Lord and Savior, the New Testament?  What was left out of that will was left out for a reason.

If a doctor writes you a prescription for drug X then you cannot use it to get drug Y in addition to drug X.  The silence of the prescription prohibits that.  And there is no substitution unless it is specifically written on the prescription that is allowed, normally to a generic.  Silence has meaning.  Silence prohibits and does not authorize.  It is impossible to gain authority from silence.

The police need a search warrant to search your home.  That warrant does not give them the legal right to search your neighbor's home.  Why not?  Because the warrant is silent, it does not speak about your neighbor's house.  You cannot have faith in silence no matter how strongly you may feel about what ought to be.  Our faith must be in what is written, not in the unsaid.

We cannot change what is written in the New Testament (the guide for Christians and Christ's last will and testament).  If we add to it we do so without having the authority to do so and thus do so as men using man's authority, not God's.  If we take away from what is written, ignoring it, then we may as well take a pair of scissors and cut it out of the biblical text.  Who would dare do that?  There is a Day of Judgment when men must stand before God and tampering with his word is not something you want to do when you contemplate that fearful day. 

A practical application of all of this, because it is such a widespread practice, is that of the use of instrumental music in worship.  It was allowed under the Law of Moses.  Why?  Because there was word from God commanding it (see 2 Chron. 29:25).  It is prohibited, even though commonly practiced, under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2, 1 Cor. 9:21) under which we live today.  Why?  There is no command for it.  The scriptures are silent.  You can only bring it into New Testament worship by adding to the words of Christ.

The secular history of the church is such that it can be proven instrumental music was not used in the New Testament church for a few hundred years after the first century.  Most historians date it to the late seventh century.  The Jews were a people well versed in the use of harps and other musical instruments.  One must ask why Jewish Christians did not use them in the earliest years of the church.  I think the answer is self-evident. 

I close this by reiterating what I have already said.  If the silence of the scriptures allows freedom to do as we please there is no end to the man-made innovations that men can dream up and bring into the church.  Who can believe we can do anything and everything with God’s approval?

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

A Way That Seems Right

The apostle John made the statement that he had “no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” (3 John 4, NKJV) Yet, today, some approximately two thousand years later, it is questioned whether one can know the truth or whether such a thing even exists. I find that quite distressing, but find myself unable to do much about it.

It was reported to me that one I know quite well made the comment as it relates to Christian doctrine that “everyone sees it differently.” The implication, of course, is that it makes little to no difference what one believes and practices in the Christian religion as long as it fits somewhere in the broad spectrum of what men call Christendom. The idea is that one can be a member of about any Christian denomination with their peculiarities and all will be well with one’s soul. It implies that truth cannot be known with any certainty and even questions whether absolute truth even exists in religion.

It is a live-and-let-live philosophy. My Christian faith and practice are as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, even though we are in deep disagreement about many things. It just makes no difference.

Certainly, there is nothing rational in this train of thought, but that is the world we live in. How do people think today? George Barna recently came out with a new report entitled: 2025 American Worldview Inventory – Report #6 Americans Possess Contradictory and Unbiblical Views about Moral Truth. I quote from it:

“Most adults in the United States do not believe that there are any moral absolutes, and they live accordingly. … Even substantial majorities of some of the largest Christian church groups reject absolute morality, including 69% of Catholics and 61% of those who attend a mainline Protestant church.

Beyond that, half of the adults considered to be spiritually conservative and a cornerstone of evangelical Christianity—a niche known as “theologically-identified born-again Christians— admit to rejecting absolute moral truth.

The research has shown that these days, Americans most often make their moral choices based on their emotional reaction to a situation. In fact, the only consideration that a majority of adults trust to discern moral truth is their feelings, which is relied upon by three out of four adults (74%).”

You can read the report for yourself, as long as it is up, online at: https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AWVI-2025-6-Contradictions-in-Beliefs-about-Moral-Truth_FINAL.pdf

Further down in the report he goes on to say: “One of the guiding moral ideals is that being open-minded and accepting of alternative philosophies of life is a sign of maturity—even if those points of view conflict with one’s personal perspectives. A large majority (67%) of adults embrace this supposed “sophisticated” thinking. ...

Pluralism is alive and well in America today: the dominant worldview of nine out of 10 adults is Syncretism, which is the blending of beliefs and behaviors conceived or favored by a variety of competing worldviews.

The popularity of that approach to life provides an ideal philosophical environment for people to suppose that competing, even conflicting, truth views can all be right or should at least be appreciated as valid.”

If, in fact, we live in such a society it is easy to see that the narrow gate Jesus spoke of is non-existent in the mind of the average American, even of many Christian conservatives. Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.” (Matt. 7:13 NKJV) In American religious thought today, Jesus had it just backwards. In our minds the gate that leads to life is quite broad indeed.

Today, even among many, perhaps most Christians, who can say (?), one sees this kind of thinking. Let someone die who has not lived a Christian life but has been a nice guy, man or woman, friendly and kind, but never lived as a Christian, and it is suddenly said upon their death that they are “in a better place now” or they have received “their angel wings.” We rail against those who would judge others, and we should oppose such judging, but on the other hand, who put you or me in charge of judging people into heaven? Who made us judge?

But that is a reflection of how people think today. People have discarded the clear teachings of the Bible and developed their own religion, which is basically whatever seems right to me. What does the Bible say about such a course? “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” (Prov. 14:12 NKJV)

Paul, in Rom. 10:2, spoke of those in his day who “have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (NKJV) I make two points about those Jews of whom he spoke. (1) He was not complimenting them. He goes on to say they were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (ver. 3).  That is exactly what is happening today with the way we are thinking about Christianity and life.

(2) The second point is that Paul spoke of knowledge. He was saying there is such a thing as truth. It is not my truth nor your truth, but the truth applicable to both of us. It is objective, not subjective, and is independent of our feelings.

Today, believing the way so many do, the Bible is forced to take a back seat, but it will not stay there. You cannot fight against God and win; only a fool tries to do so.

It is felt that Christianity is too narrow if you take the word of God to mean what it says, so we play around with it and tell ourselves the text does not mean what it seems to be saying in so many different places. We spend our time not in teaching what the text says but in teaching why the text does not mean what it says. No, not all of us, but so many do.

Of course, there is such a thing as intolerance which we must fight against. The problem is that we have come to tolerate the evil and condemn the good. “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

This raises the question, of course, of how do we know the good from the evil? Are we to determine it for ourselves? Is it whatever seems right to me? Is there no objective standard? That is where we are today, each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes, living by feelings, and intolerant of anyone judging their personal decisions. We have abandoned our standard, the Bible, and each is doing what is right in their own eyes.

Two examples are our society’s open embrace of homosexual unions and of living together outside marriage. We all know the Bible condemns both, but we have embraced both as a society, for we make the rules now, not God. We will reject him if need be, and so we have.

Where is all this new worldview going to land us? God only knows. It will not be a good place, but only time will tell. We do know, however, “sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34 NKJV) and God will eventually judge us all.

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

 

The Relationship of The Blood of Jesus and Baptism

All who claim to be Christians believe we are saved by the blood of Jesus.  All believe that for the Bible clearly states it, "We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph 1:7 NKJV)  There are very few, however, who realize where God has placed that blood spiritually speaking. 

Christianity is a religion of the spirit.  No man is saved by coming into physical contact with the blood of Christ.  This is simply a truism accepted by all.  We do not each get a microscopic drop of literal blood placed on our souls.  So the question then becomes where has God placed the blood in a spiritual sense?  It does matter; it is a matter of salvation. 

In the Bible, blood stands for life.  God speaking to Noah and his sons after the flood said unto them, "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen 9:4 NKJV)  Again, God speaking to Moses in Lev. 17:11 says to Moses, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." (NKJV)  And, then again, in Lev. 17:14, "The life of all flesh is its blood." (NKJV) 

In the New Testament Judas when he had betrayed the Lord, felt remorse, and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders saying to them, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." (Matt. 27:4 NKJV)  What did he mean by using the phrase "innocent blood?"  He meant he had betrayed innocent life.  Blood stood for life. 

When Pilate washed his hands before the multitude who wanted Jesus put to death and made the statement, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matt. 27:24 NKJV) what did he mean?  Was it not I am innocent of putting to death this innocent man?  Blood stood for life. 

Jesus was God's sacrificial lamb who, as John the Baptist said, takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)  This required the shedding of his blood, the taking of his life.  Jesus said, in instituting the Lord's Supper, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)  We are justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9) and "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) 

When Jesus died on the cross his blood was shed in that his life was taken.  Jesus had shed some blood prior to his death.  There was the scourging he endured, the crown of thorns on his head, the nails driven through his hands yet, all of that being true, he had not yet shed his blood in the Bible sense of the giving up of life itself.  Surely no one believes we were saved by the literal blood of the scourging, thorns, or nails. 

When Jesus uttered his last words on the cross and gave up the ghost his blood was then shed in Bible parlance.  John, in John 19:33-34, in speaking of what happened while Jesus was on the cross after his death said, "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out." (John 19:33-34 NKJV) 

This event, the piercing of his side, had symbolic importance for the sacrifice of himself had already taken place, his life already given for ours.  Remember Lev. 17:11?  "The life of the flesh is in the blood."  With his side being pierced the life of Jesus was now gone for the whole world to see.  His blood was shed in every sense of the word.  Where was the soul-cleansing blood of Jesus shed?  In his death, when he died on the cross, but now it was evident to all he was dead.  

So, we know where Jesus shed his blood--in his death, at the moment he died.  This then tells us all that if we are to come into contact with that blood we must enter into his death.  For me to come into contact with that saving blood, spiritually speaking, I must get into Christ's death.  Paul was very clear on where and how you and I do this.  He says in Rom. 6:3, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (NKJV) 

He goes on, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4 NKJV)  When is a person to walk in the newness of life?  After baptism.  Can one walk in newness of life unless the blood of Jesus has cleansed him?  Newness of life comes to a man upon being raised from the waters of baptism.  God placed the cleansing blood in the waters of baptism.  In that act, when done from a heart of faith having repented of one’s sins, the blood of Jesus cleanses a man or woman from all sin. 

But, objection is made by man and it is said baptism is a little thing.  Is the blood of Jesus a little thing?  If one can be saved without baptism into the death of Christ then one can be saved without the blood of Jesus.  

Paul in 2 Cor. 5:17 makes this statement, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Co 5:17 NKJV)  Bearing that in mind what did Paul say to us in the passages just under consideration?  Did he not say, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus … ?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  Yes, he said we were baptized into Christ. 

In Christ how?  By being baptized into him.  Where is one a "new creation?"  In Christ.  How can a man be a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) unless the blood of Christ has cleansed him?  In Christ, I am cleansed, a new creation, but I am baptized into Christ.  I get into Christ by baptism.  The blood of cleansing then spiritually speaking is found in baptism. 

In talking to Timothy, Paul says this is a faithful saying, "For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him." (2 Tim. 2:11 NKJV)  We died with him by being baptized into his death. (Rom. 6:3)  Paul says if we did that we shall live with him thus the blood of Jesus must be contacted in the waters of baptism.  It is only through his blood that we have life.  But, what if we did not die with Him in baptism?  I will let the reader answer. 

Then Paul says in Eph. 5:25-26, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:25-26 NKJV)  Does anyone believe the church Jesus loved and gave himself for has not been cleansed by his blood?  But, the text says he cleansed the church with the "washing of water by the word."  Thus the blood was in the waters of baptism. 

There is an interesting passage in Heb. 10:22 where the writer is admonishing those to whom he wrote.  He says, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (NKJV)  Let us couple that with what Peter spoke of concerning baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (NKJV) 

To have one's heart sprinkled from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22) is the same as to have a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21).  Peter says this is accomplished in baptism while the Hebrew writer speaks of our bodies being washed with pure water.  They are one and the same.  The clean conscience is acquired through being baptized.  Peter goes so far as to say baptism saves us.  The blood of Christ must then be found in the waters of baptism.  That is where the conscience is cleansed.  The conscience cannot be cleansed from God's standpoint without the blood of Jesus.  It is cleansed in baptism.  This is the only logical deduction one can make. 

I realize an article like this is going to be very, very unpopular.  People want no part of baptism being a salvation issue.  Passage after passage teaches that it is (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21) plainly and clearly.  In fact, when God's word says "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Act 2:38 NKJV) one wonders how such a passage can be misunderstood by rational men.  

A question that arises in my mind is this.  Let us suppose for the sake of argument that God wanted to tell men that they must be baptized to have their sins forgiven and to be saved.  Since the language he used is not adequate to satisfy the mass of mankind how would you, if you were him, phrase it to make it clear to all readers?  What words would you use to convey the idea?  Remember what he said as stated was not adequate to convince men.  You would have to use other words.  What words would you use? 

People are not rational when it comes to religion.  In religion, emotions generally rule.  Men and women often cannot see the truth because as plain as it might be they are not willing to face up to it, because they do not want to see and know the truth.  Perhaps truth condemns them or their family and maybe some of the family has already passed on while living in error.  In other cases, truth may prohibit them from living the kind of life they would prefer to live.  Add to those things change can be very uncomfortable.  It may be much easier to continue as you are versus changing with the unpleasantness that can bring in relationships.  Whatever the cause a refusal to accept truth gives them a comfort, temporary though it may be, that they cannot find in the truth itself. 

I want to close with this.  You and I might wish it was some other way.  Some cannot bear the thought that they have family now gone who if what I have written today is the truth never accepted the truth and died in error.  We worry about them and we are not willing to accept the truth because of where we think that would place them.  My advice is to leave those matters with God for he will do what is right.  If they end up in the wrong place in the life to come do you think you will bring them joy by meeting up with them there?  You would only add sorrow to sorrow, guilt to guilt. 

But, I have to ask you one other question, a momentous question.  Are you going to pass error on to your children and grandchildren after you?  If Mom and Dad died in error they are now in God's hands.  Let him deal with the matter.  As for you, you likely have children, grandchildren, a spouse to be concerned about, some or all of these.  Will you lead them down the road of error because of the past?  If so you will likely get what you deserve.  How could it be otherwise? 

Did Jesus command baptism?  If he did (you know he did) you know your duty.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

The Way Into Christ

It is only human nature to want the way to heaven to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible thus the more ways into Christ that can be found the better from a human perspective.  We have people we want to see saved and yet we are pretty sure they are not due to either the way they are living or to the beliefs they hold thus a broad gate and a wide way to heaven would suit us just fine.  But it goes without saying that our love for one who does not walk in the light of truth cannot change the truth itself.  No man is saved “unconditionally” which is to say saved regardless of belief, character, and conduct.  God saves sinners, true enough, but not while they actively engage in the practice of sin unrepentantly.

The fact remains that no matter how much we desire another’s salvation it is up to them to bring their life into accord with God’s will for neither you nor I can broaden the gate.  “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14 NKJV)

Salvation is found only in Christ.  “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV)  Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV)  Again, he says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:9 NKJV)

The point I want to drive home is that salvation is found “in Christ” and not “out of Christ.”  Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)  Redemption “is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 3:24 NKJV)  Elsewhere Paul says Christ “is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)  The body of which he is the Savior is his spiritual body, the church, for the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) which makes being “in Christ” essential.  We must be in that which Christ is going to save.  “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation,” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) emphasis on “in Christ” and not out of him.  Thus it is essential to be “in Christ” for that is where “every spiritual blessing” is found (Eph. 1:3 NKJV) which, of course, includes salvation itself. 

Having firmly established that salvation is found “in Christ” how then does one enter into Christ?  How many ways are there?  The Bible teaches there are conditions for entering into Christ, prerequisites if you will, namely faith, repentance, and confession all of which are absolutely essential to salvation but none of those things by themselves or even taken collectively will put you “into Christ.”  Only baptism is said to do that--no not baptism by itself  but baptism that is built on faith accompanied by repentance with a willingness to confess Christ.  Baptism is the final step one takes to enter Christ and find salvation in him.

Hear the language Paul uses:  “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV), “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV), “for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) speaking of the body of Christ.  Baptism puts one into Christ where salvation is found.

How does this accord with the examples of conversions as we find them in Acts?  In Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon was preached that was ever preached and that by inspiration of the apostle Peter (the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter) people were made believers.  Were they saved?  God did not consider them saved for his command to them through Peter was “repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  Denominationalism would say they were saved after faith and repentance and the rest of God’s command to them that day (be baptized) was not needed for salvation.  Well, who are you going to believe?  We ought to believe Peter and the Holy Spirit and not our denominational pastors.

Peter said, “Every one of you.”  There were to be and are to be no exceptions.  This brings to mind Paul’s statement to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  Note here again the phrase “we were all”--that is every one of us.  No, Paul did not do a lot of baptizing personally but that it was done as a result of his preaching and by those working with him there is no doubt for “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8 NKJV)  No one was considered as “one of them” who was not baptized either on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:38) or at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:13).

Paul himself was made a believer and repented when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.  Was he saved?  Jesus told him directly, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”   The Lord sent Ananias to tell him what he must do.  What did Ananias tell him?  “Now why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (Acts 22:16 NKJV)  When a man’s sins are gone, washed away, he is “in Christ.”  So no, Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus even though he came to faith and repentance there, not if the word “must” means must.

Paul equates baptism into Christ with putting on Christ.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  When I put on a coat I am in the coat.  When I put on Christ I am in Christ.  That is where I need to be for that is where salvation is found.  Can one be in Christ who has not put on Christ?

We need to always remember Jesus himself commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)--the Great Commission.  Why did he do so if it does not matter to him and is non-essential for salvation?  Put yourself for a short moment of time into the apostles' shoes who received this commission (verse 20 teaches we have received that commission as well for it has been handed down to us).  Jesus tells them to make disciples (learners, those who will follow one’s teaching) of all nations baptizing them (Matt. 28:19).  That is a command.  There is no choice about it.

Question--how do you do that in today’s world where people have swallowed the denominational line that you need not be baptized?  We are commanded to baptize those made disciples yet they refuse thinking it unnecessary even though Jesus commanded it.  It ought to be obvious that discipleship ends at that point where one bulks at a command and refuses obedience.

I have said nothing on Mark 16:16, the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” but do I need to?  I do not think so.  If words mean anything it is self-explanatory.

I want to deal with some objections.  There are many passages in the Bible that if one wants to be a careless scholar he can lead himself astray.  For example, take a passage like Rom. 5:1-2, written by Paul, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (NKJV)  Or, here is another, “even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.” (Rom. 3:22 NKJV)  A careless scholar takes these passages and many similar ones found throughout the New Testament and says “see, here it is, salvation is by faith and baptism has nothing to do with it.”

Some things are obvious about this kind of scholarship.  For one thing, it pits the writer, Paul, against himself not only in other books of the Bible but in this very same book itself--the book of Romans.  If the reader will just read on to chapter 6 he will find baptism.

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.  For he who has died has been freed from sin.  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” (Rom. 6:3-8 NKJV)

How about the person who has not been baptized into Christ’s death?  What if you have not been “united together in the likeness of his death?” (Rom. 6:5)  The text says “if we have.” (Rom. 6:5)  It does not say “if we have not.”  Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3) and that being the case it is also into the benefits or blessings of Christ’s death.  You only walk in newness of life, a new creature, a new creation, when you arise as such from the waters of baptism for “our old man was crucified with him.” (Rom. 6:6)  Crucifixion means death.  We were baptized “into death.” (Rom. 6:4)  We arise from the baptismal waters to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) because “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5: 17 NKJV)  The text says “If we died with Christ.” (Rom. 6:8)  It does not say “if we do not die with Christ.”  We need to read and reason as we do so.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jesus speaking, John 3:3, NKJV)  “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Jesus, John 3:5 NKJV)

A man is saved by faith, the Bible teaches that, but it is a faith that truly believes and thus acts.  That is why on the Day of Pentecost when God told the people, speaking through Peter, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins the people did it.  Why, because they believed God’s message.  That is why Paul, then known as Saul, was baptized when God speaking through Ananias told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.  Why?  Because he believed what God’s messenger Ananias told him.

Faith or belief has been perverted today.  Thus today you cannot read Peter’s sermon as delivered on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, believe it, and be accepted as a man of faith by the majority in Christendom.  Why, because the consensus is today that you do not have to believe what Peter said to do for the remission of sins and if you do believe it that is heresy.  Thus there can be no faith in what Peter preached as a command to the people that day.  Faith today thus means no faith.  Yes, it is strange and hard to reason out (maybe because there is no reason to it).  It is a perversion of faith.  Scriptural faith means you believe what Peter preached, not disbelieve it.

In the Bible when it comes to salvation faith and obedience are so linked together that there can be no saving faith without the obedience that proceeds from it.  Here is a perfect example.  Heb. 3:18-19, “And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey?  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” (NKJV)  Why did the children of Israel under Moses’ leadership not enter the land of Canaan, the land of rest?  Because they heard God’s command to go take the land but they did not believe God (did not believe he would give them the power to overcome the inhabitants) and not believing they would not obey.  That is where most of Christendom is today with baptism.  They know what the Bible clearly says about it but they are unwilling to obey because they do not believe plain statements of scripture concerning baptism’s function and purpose.

One thing that would help men greatly in understanding faith is if they would learn what a synecdoche is.  A synecdoche is a figure of speech “by which we speak of the whole by a part, or a part by using a term denoting the whole…This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners.  The whole number of conditions is indicated by the use of one.  Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow.” (Prof. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, Pages 300-305)  We should not read the Bible, come across the word faith, and think without giving it thought that it necessarily means mental assent alone.  Be a scholar and study it out and see based on the context and the totality of New Testament teaching on the subject what the word means where it is located.

I want to deal with one other passage and that by Peter before closing.  In Acts 10:43 Peter is at the house of Cornelius preaching and says this, “To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV)  This is the same Peter who preached on the Day of Pentecost that those there must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.  Has he now changed his tune in chapter 10, at a later date, and is he now preaching another gospel?

No, for in the New Testament faith and baptism fit together as a unit.  It is simple, if you believe, if you truly believe, you are baptized.  Again, did Peter change his tune here versus what he taught on the Day of Pentecost, no not at all.  The text says five verses later, speaking of Peter addressing Cornelius and his household, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  One who believes in Jesus believes what Jesus said and what Jesus said was “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  What Jesus said was, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  Yes, even Cornelius had to be baptized and was “commanded” to do it.

Baptism is a test of the purity or sincerity of faith.  It is not whether you believe me but whether you believe Jesus and his apostles.  Yes, there is only one way into Christ but man has sought out many inventions to try and circumvent the way of the Lord. 

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

    

One Church—A Thing Hard to Accept

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me.  One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it.  I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her.  Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor.  Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist.  I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion?  Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects?  There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth.  I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with. 

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them.  They would flunk out of a high school or college class for they will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning.  Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O.J. it simply cannot be so.  It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it.  That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their mind that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).  

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.”  Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV) 

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see?  Had God done it?  The text says "their eyes they have closed."  Why would a person do that?  Could it be they did not want to see?  Could it be they did not want to know?  Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know?  Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing.  Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV)  It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear. 

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will."  Both could have heard.  The only difference between the two parties was the heart.  The Jewish heart had grown dull.  The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull."  The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will.  Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV)  The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them.  It is hard to get a satisfied person to change. 

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man.  The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context).  It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions.  Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will.  Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong.  The eyes were deliberately closed.   

This brings me to what I really want to talk about it.  I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present.  The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology.  In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide."  In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000.  The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty some thousand?

How is it we have here in the Bible a plain statement of scripture as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews in centuries gone by and yet the eyes are closed today and the ears are hard of hearing and the hearts are grown dull so the plain statement of scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty some thousand?  Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old.  We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church.  Where do you read that in your Bible?  What book is that in, what chapter, what verse or verses?  It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said.  That parable is found in John 15.  Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations.  There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time.  When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it.  Why?  Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the 12 apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper (compare Mark 14:17-18 with John 13:1-18:3).  Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations?  It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account.  It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines.  When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.).  The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination then the reality is truth no longer matters.  Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error.  Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus.  That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means.  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?  That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock.  Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV)  Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men or the same group of men do the same thing after Pentecost.  What then?  They are believers that Christ is the Son of God.  Is that all that matters?  Are they then in the "one church?"  Are they saved?  The failure to confess Jesus is the same as denying him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief.  When you begin to define saving faith in stricter terms than just an intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are saying that doctrine does make a difference after all and if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church."  The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.  

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built.  God adds you when you obey the gospel.  The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved?  In Acts 2 in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted) we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter via the Holy Spirit preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach?  He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV)  Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached.  Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful?  Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation.  If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened.  He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter.  So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says.  That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus."  There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example).  No one wants that kind of faith.  We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject.  You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds.  They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts.  It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either.  They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question.  Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside.  Here are some examples:  the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc.  These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of.  These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question.  Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which any person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or on the other hand that there is only one church?  I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling.  It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them?  Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church.  I include Catholicism as just another denomination.  It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad).  But, this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost) or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built.   That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine.  Every congregation was to abide in it.  There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine.  It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church.  It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church.  If that church is not found in your community why not restore it?  You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

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