Peter's Preaching and the Apostle's Preaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gospel Obedience at Corinth--What Really Happened?

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

Paul himself, in his conversion, was baptized.  You may recall the words of Ananias to him, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NAS)  I might add that it is hard to wash away your sins if you do not have any so evidently Ananias felt pretty sure that Paul still had some that needed to be taken care of.  Many modern-day preachers speak as though they know more about it than what Ananias did as they say men are saved at the point of faith without baptism and thus have no sins to wash away. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Don't Go to Church Much Anymore

I suppose it could be said of many people, "I don't go to church much anymore."  I wonder why?  Old age with infirmity and ill health will certainly slow one down but I am thinking more now of the many who simply have quit attending church services not having any reason for doing so.  Their health is fine.  They have just quit going.

I know of one who said she rarely goes anymore who went on and said, "But I am as close to God as ever."  How does she know that?  How can she know it?  Did God tell her; did he whisper it in her ear?  Did she read it in scripture?  Or, did her emotions and they alone tell her this?  To ask is to answer.

Many people's faith does not rest on the ground of God's word but on their emotions, on what their feelings (they call it their heart) tells them.  Their conscience does not bother them because their heart tells them all is well.  However, the faith of the Bible rests on God's word and that alone.  "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV)

Every person's prayer to God ought to be Father let me see myself as you see me.  Let me look through your eyes, which is in this case his word, so that I might see myself as I am and not as I think I am.  Let me cease measuring myself by my standard of measurement and accept with purity of heart whatever your word tells me about myself be it good or bad.

If God gives me a command and I habitually ignore it how can I say I love God and it’s okay with my soul?  "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some...for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." (Heb. 10:24-25 NKJV—the reader would do well to read on through verse 31)  This passage is destructive of the idea that one can ignore church services and still be close to God.  "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)

Some may say, "That is just your interpretation."  That is pretty much the standard line that is being used today against any doctrine of the Bible that does not satisfy the one who wishes to ignore what it teaches.  It doesn't matter if a teaching is so clear a third grader could not misunderstand it if it does not satisfy the longing of the one who wishes to discard it.  It is "just your interpretation."  We have become a dishonest people.  We are dishonest with the scriptures, with God, and even with ourselves.

Many others have reached the point, and many more are headed that way, where they no longer make any claim to faith in Christianity and look with scorn on anything from the Bible.  While they still claim love as their own it will be love as they alone define it and they are not about to the let the book of God define it for them.  It will be defined by what they feel in their hearts.  But, here is the problem:

"The heart is deceitful above all things,  And desperately wicked;  Who can know it?  I, the Lord, search the heart,  I test the mind,  Even to give every man according to his ways,  According to the fruit of his doings." (Jer. 17:9-10 NKJV)

We will be judged by our ways and doings when put up against the word of God, not by our deceitful hearts.

“The word I have spoken will judge him in the last day.” (Jesus speaking, John 12:48 NKJV) 

We are going to be judged by the word of God, not by our inward feelings or emotions. 

 "But everyone who hears these sayings of mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell.  And great was its fall." (Matt. 7:26-27 NKJV)

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father in heaven."  (Matt. 7:21 NKJV)

"He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him." (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)

But, then, as stated earlier, in our society today “that is just your interpretation.”

The Bible does not teach we can be saved by perfect commandment keeping, we are saved by grace, but neither does it teach we are free to ignore God's commands and tell ourselves fantasy stories about how it is well with our soul.

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

Bible Contradictions on Salvation

If we believe the Bible is the word of God why do we often interpret it in a way that makes it contradict itself?  Truth is harmonious or else it's not truth and cannot be.  Jesus says of God's word, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)  It does not oppose itself when properly interpreted.

Martin Luther was persuaded he had found contradiction in the Bible between what Paul wrote in Romans about salvation being by faith versus James saying works were necessary.  In an online article (online at the time I originally wrote this) entitled, "Martin Luther's View of the Epistle of James" by Daniel Petty he says, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul (Bainton 259)."  (Petty's source:  Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: New American Library, 1950; 1978.)

Martin Luther's doctrine does indeed make Paul and James contradict one another.  That fact alone ought to tell you Luther was wrong in his theology no matter how sincere.  Any time your doctrine makes the Bible contradict itself this tells you if you will listen, that your doctrine is in error, that you are wrong in your thinking, and need a new approach to understanding the scripture.

In the first place, we error when we speak of the word of God as though it came from man even though I concede we generally know what is meant by such statements.  But, the reality is it is not Paul's word, then James' word, and then Peter's, etc., for "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV)  What Paul wrote he wrote by inspiration.  What James wrote he wrote by inspiration.

Thus if Paul says we are saved by faith and James says works are necessary then both are correct else you have God fighting against himself.  Even worse you have God lying in one place or the other if either Paul or James is wrong.  If both are correct truth is harmonious as it must be. 

Everyone agrees the New Testament is full of passages that teach that a man is saved by faith so I will only list a couple.  "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life." (John 3:36 NKJV)  "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:1 NKJV)
 
We all accept these passages and this teaching but too often people do not consider or give thought to what faith is.  Do these passages define faith?  Do they tell you whether this is a living faith or a dead faith as per James?  Is it an obedient faith or a disobedient faith?  Is faith just a matter of the mind alone, a belief held, or is it more than that?  The texts do not tell us.

The assumption is we know what faith is and generally, that is whatever we each individually want it to be.  We define it as we desire.  This creates a lot of problems in interpreting the Bible; the result is we end up with doctrines that contradict the Bible.

Without preaching a sermon on faith to define it let me refer you to James 2:22.  "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works." (ESV)

The scriptural biblical faith that saves is that faith which is a completed faith, not an incomplete faith.  Other versions use the word "perfect" instead of the word "complete".  It is the faith that is made perfect that saves rather than the faith not made perfect.

The New Living Translation of the Bible, which I consider a paraphrase, gets at the sense of what is being taught.  "You see, he was trusting God so much that he was willing to do whatever God told him to do.  His faith was made complete by what he did--by his actions." (James 2:22 NLT, 1996 edition)

This is saving faith, the faith that saves, the only kind of faith that makes a difference, the only concept of faith we should hold, the only concept of saving faith that is scriptural.  Only faith so strong that it obeys can save but this is the very concept of faith that is wanting among large numbers of believers.   

James then says by inspiration that we are saved by works.  "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24 NKJV)  A man can either believe that or say it is a lie.  We can say no, justification is by faith alone.  A man can say a lot of things.  It is what the Bible says that matters.  No-where does the Bible say we are saved by faith alone and nowhere does it say we are saved by works alone.  It is a faith completed by obedient works that saves thus both faith and obedience (works) save. 

Jesus has said we will be judged by his word on the last day.  "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48 NKJV)  If a person's doctrine does not allow for salvation by both faith and works he is in error since the Bible states clearly that one is saved by both.  The passages quoted above suffice to show that.

But, one will object.  How about Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (NKJV)  Since the Bible, and truth, cannot contradict itself it becomes immediately obvious that Paul is speaking of one kind of works while James speaks of another.  One type of works saves; the other does not and cannot.

The type of works that cannot save are the works of the Law of Moses.  Why could they not save?  I quote Gal. 3:10 (TEV), "Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse.  For the scripture says, 'whoever does not always obey everything that is written in the book of the Law is under God's curse!'"  One act of disobedience at any point in the course of one's life would condemn him without remedy under the law.  No man can live a perfect life without ever sinning.  No man will ever be a perfect law keeper.

This being the case Paul writes in Gal. 3:21, "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (NKJV)  Since no such law was given man could only be saved by Christ, by faith in him.

But, there are works other than the works of the Law of Moses.  These are the works James speaks of which bring justification.  What are those works?  Hear the writer of the book of Hebrews.

The Hebrew writer says of Jesus, "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)  Paul who speaks so much of salvation by faith and grace says in Rom. 6:16, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?"  Note his phrase, "obedience to righteousness."  This is the same as to say obedience to salvation for the righteous person will be saved, not the unrighteous.

It becomes clear then that the works James speaks of that bring justification are works of obedience to Christ and are the same as Paul’s “obedience to righteousness.”  James' “works” and Paul’s “obedience” are equivalents, one and the same.

Too many are ready to say that obedience is more or less equivalent to law keeping.  Since we are not saved by law they do not see obedience as being essential.  For example, from their point of view, Christ commands baptism but one does not have to obey that to be saved.  To require it would be law keeping or salvation by works.

The trouble with that way of thinking is that the idea is in conflict with passages such as those I have just quoted, Hebrews 5:9 for example, where Christ is said to be the author of salvation to all who obey him.  If one's doctrine does not harmonize with total Bible preaching on a subject it cannot be true.

The truth is Christ was also a lawgiver and has a law we are expected to keep as much as we humanly can.  Listen to the following scriptures.  "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal 6:2 NKJV)  This is Paul's writing, the very one who wrote of salvation by grace and faith.  Paul says of himself, "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." (1 Cor. 9:21 NKJV)

The Hebrew writer says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb. 7:12 NKJV)  He doesn't say now there is no law but only that the law has changed.  It is now the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.  If there is no law today how does one commit sin?  John says, depending on which version you use, that "sin is lawlessness" (NKJV, NAS), "sin is the transgression of the law." (KJV 1 John 3:4).

Jesus himself says, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." (John 14:21 NKJV)  Is a God-given commandment not law?

But, here is the difference.  The Law of Moses required perfect law-keeping for salvation which no man other than Jesus ever did.  The law of Christ, while still law, provides a grace element for sin.  The person, however, who thinks he can forget all about the commandments of Jesus and just be saved by grace and faith apart from works of obedience makes the scriptures contradict themselves, invites lawlessness, and propagates error if he teaches such. The scriptures are harmonious.

This brings us to the place where so many want to kick and say it is not so -- to baptism.  The Bible teaches we are saved by baptism.  "There is an antitype which now saves us, namely 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." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)

"Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,'" while preaching the first gospel sermon ever heard after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:38 NKJV).

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NKJV)

Jesus says, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."  (John 3:5 NKJV)

Paul, the very man who speaks of salvation by faith, although never faith alone, says, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV)  Many would have this read, "for as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ."  Really!  That will not work.  That is not what Paul said or taught.

Paul says in Rom. 6:3, "as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus" so he says the same thing again that he had said in Gal. 3:26-27.  One is baptized into Christ.  Salvation is in Christ.  Paul says (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV), "Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

Salvation is "in Christ Jesus".  We are, Paul says, "baptized into Christ Jesus."  Thus if there is no baptism, there is no being in Christ Jesus and no salvation which is found only in Christ Jesus. 

One can believe it or not but make no mistake about it, that is what God's word says and teaches.  When God says something we ought to believe it and obey it.  One's sins are forgiven at baptism which is the act where one contacts the blood of Christ spiritually speaking.

Jesus shed his blood in his death.  Paul says we are baptized into his death (Rom. 6:3) which is where Jesus' blood is located for the simple reason that is where God chose to locate it.  No, there is no real blood in the water.  No one ever literally comes into contact with physical blood.  But, figuratively or spiritually, that is the place God chose for us to come into contact with the blood of the cross for the remission of our sins. 

In 2 Kings 5:11 (NKJV) we find a man by the name of Naaman who wanted to be healed of his leprosy and thus came to Elisha, God's prophet.  He was told to go dip 7 times in the Jordan River.  This did not satisfy him.  He did not want water involved in his cleansing.  "But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, 'Indeed, I said to myself, 'He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.'" (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV)

Naaman wanted to be cleansed of his leprosy but wanted it done his way and at first that did not include any water.  It was only after he decided to go about it in God's way that he was cleansed.  We ought to learn from that.  If God wants water involved in our cleansing from sin why should we object?  Why should we object to doing it God’s way?

So far I have not mentioned even one item that conflicts with another in the teaching of God's word concerning those things that bring about our salvation the reason being that everything God has had to say on the matter works together in perfect harmony with everything else he has had to say about it.  Faith is not in conflict with works, is not in conflict with obedience, and is not in conflict with baptism.

The word of God does not contradict itself.  Whatever the Bible says you are saved by, made righteous by, justified by, is truth, and is essential to salvation.  To say it is not is to reflect upon the word of God.  It is to set God's word aside to keep one's own tradition, the tradition of men.  Many have done that on the subject of how a man is saved.

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