Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

In an article I wrote some time ago I had a gentleman of the Pentecostal persuasion respond seemingly upset with me over the issue of baptism as I was emphasizing the importance of water baptism which he was discounting as being nothing more than a picture of salvation (whatever that means).  Of course, his emphasis was on Holy Spirit baptism.  In any case, since I said I would respond I will do so here thinking I might as well make an article out of my response. 

When one reads the gospels the very first mention of the subject of baptism comes with the introduction of John the Baptist.  Mark says, "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."  (Mark 1:5 NKJV)  We know Jesus when baptized, by John, "came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him."  (Matt. 3:16 NKJV)  So our very first introduction to the subject of baptism relates it to water, not the Holy Spirit. 

However, John did prophecy of two other baptisms to come.  He says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  (Mat 3:11 NKJV) 

It is very important to note who will be doing the baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.  Will it be the apostles, will it be man?  No, for the text says "He," a reference to Jesus, which means what?  If you are going to receive Holy Spirit baptism it will not be at the hands of men.  It will have to come directly from heaven itself.  Jesus will be the administrator. 

But, it means even more.  It means it cannot be a command for it is something Christ does for you.  In other words, it is a baptism you cannot obey.  It is something you receive, not something you do.  Pentecostals ought to keep this in mind because it is going to cause problems down the road.  Indeed, it is going to cause problems before one even finishes the book of Matthew. 

In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus speaking to the apostles said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJV)  The reader already knows enough from what has been said previously that this is a command for water baptism for it is the only baptism men can administer.  Men could baptize others with water but not with the Holy Spirit.  Only Jesus could do that. 

Furthermore, the command of the Great Commission was to teach those they baptized to go out and do the same with others--make disciples and baptize them—thus making the Great Commission a perpetual command for the ages.  This means in Eph. 4:5 when Paul said there was "one baptism" we know which one it was. 

Before the time of Paul's writing of the book of Ephesians, there had been two baptisms--water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism (the baptism of fire being yet future at the Day of Judgment).  However, by the time Paul wrote the book of Ephesians, scholars say sometime between 61 and 64 AD, only one baptism remained.  This was approximately 30 years after Jesus had ascended back into heaven and Paul now says as he writes there is but one baptism. 

This puts Pentecostals in a tight spot.  If they say we still have Holy Spirit baptism then they must deny we have water baptism.  If they say we still have both they make Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, out to be a liar for that makes two baptisms rather than one. 

Did Jesus speak about baptizing some in the Holy Spirit?  Yes, he did, but to whom?  It was to those with whom he met in Luke 24:33-49.  It was with those who were to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49 NKJV)  It was to those who would first preach "repentance and remission of sins … in His name … beginning at Jerusalem."  Now who did that?  Was Peter the first one?  Did he preach baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) "beginning at Jerusalem"?  Yes, he did. 

In the book of John starting with chapter 13 and going through chapter 17 Jesus is with the apostles he had chosen at the Last Supper.  Here he again speaks about this select group being baptized with the Holy Spirit or words to that effect (John 14:16-18, 26, 16:13). 

Luke, in the book of Acts, speaks of "the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2) and then says, "to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:3-5 NKJV) 

Thus the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to a select few, not to all Christians.  All Christians received the Holy Spirit but not all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and there is a difference.  Many received spiritual gifts and thus had a measure of the Holy Spirit in that special sense as well, but the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to those few Jesus chose.  I remind the reader that while Holy Spirit baptism had to come directly from heaven spiritual gifts could be received at the hands of the apostles.  "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given."  (Act 8:18 NKJV) 

Even spiritual gifts were not to last endlessly until the Day of Judgment.  Paul says, in Eph. 4:11-14 (NAS), "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming."  

Apostles and prophets were obviously men with spiritual gifts.  Are there, apostles and prophets, still with us today?  The reader ought to highlight the word "until" in the above passage.  Words do have meaning.  "Until" places a time limit.  Then note the last verse that begins with "As a result."  The result is we will not be carried away "by every wind of doctrine" thus the earth will still be here when the apostles and prophets are gone and so will every wind of doctrine which we will not be carried away by. 

A passage that is even a little clearer is 1 Cor. 13:8-10, "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge (miraculous spiritual--DS), it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."  Some say this refers to Jesus' second coming.  Does it?  It is hard to see how you or I need to be told that there will not be prophecy in heaven.  Is that not self-evident?  Let me tell you what is "perfect" in addition to Jesus--his completed revelation to man in his word, the New Testament itself.  Do you doubt the word of God is perfect?  See Psalms 19:7. 

The one who takes issue with me says, "In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian baptism in the name of the Lord.  Prove that it does."  If you recall John 3:5 reads as follows, "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (NAS)  Well, what are the other options?  Is it "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"  That is how this sincere man would have it read, but I think it is readily seen that this will not work in the context of how the sentence is phrased. 

He also argues that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12 all refer to Holy Spirit baptism, not water baptism.  I have already shown that since there is only one baptism today, according to Paul, then it is an either/or option--either it is Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism.  If it is Holy Spirit baptism then the baptism Jesus commanded in the Great Commission is of no effect today and you cannot carry out the Great Commission. 

In Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"  By using the word "us" Paul includes himself.  Let us hear Ananias at the time of Paul's baptism, Acts 22:16, "'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'"  It sounds to me like the responsibility is on Paul to "arise and be baptized."  It sounds like it is something Paul can attend to.  He can't if it is Holy Spirit baptism as my critic claims.  He will have to wait on Jesus to do that.  Thus my critic is in error. 

Gal. 3:27 reads as follows, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS)  Am I baptized "into Christ" or am I baptized by Christ?  Holy Spirit baptism is by Christ, not into Christ.  If Christ both baptizes one and puts one into himself (salvation is in Christ--2 Tim. 2:10) then if you are lost it looks like it is his fault since there is something he did not do for you.  I can obey the command for water baptism but I cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism for Jesus has the responsibility for that.  I have not clothed myself with Christ, and cannot do so, if it is out of my hands which would be the case if this passage refers to Holy Spirit baptism. 

Finally, Col. 2:12, which he says is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, reads as follows with me including verses 11 and 13 in order to read the text in context.  "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions." (NAS) 

Beginning with Abraham if a male child was not circumcised the eighth day he fell out of covenant relationship with God.  This remained true on up through the entirety of the Mosaical Era.  You can read about it in Gen. 17:12-14.  If one is in covenant relationship with God he is a child of God.  He may or may not remain faithful and thus can be lost later but at the time he becomes a child of God he is saved. 

I have a question.  In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, after the giving of the Great Commission, when were those gathered there, the three thousand, placed into a covenant relationship with God?  Was it before water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?  Water baptism was necessary both for the forgiveness of sins and for the reception of the Holy Spirit and was prior to both.  Without the forgiveness of sins first, there was no covenant relationship with God, not under the new covenant. 

It would be good, perhaps, to quote Acts 2:38 here: "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." (NKJV) 

Circumcision placed one into covenant relationship with God under the Law of Moses.  When were people placed in that relationship in Acts 2--was it before or after the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit?  One can readily see it was before the receiving of the Holy Spirit but after water baptism.  If you have received "remission of sins" you are saved and in a covenant relationship with God.  Circumcision in the covenant of Christ, in Christianity, is baptism from the heart of faith for the remission of sins in water, not Holy Spirit baptism.  In that act, when based on faith, sins are cut away (removed).  Colossians 2:11-13 is a reference to water baptism. 

But, sometimes it is good to argue against ourselves so, putting myself in my critic's shoes, I would come back and say have you not read Rom.2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God"? (NKJV) 

The same Paul who wrote Colossians wrote Romans.  We shall tie them together.  I remind the reader my critic believes the talk about baptism in Rom. 6, the first several verses, is a reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit.  But, Paul says in Rom 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."  There are two points to be made.  (1) You cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism thus his argument fails when he says the baptism of Romans 6 is Holy Spirit baptism.  (2) When were they set free from sin according to Paul?  Answer--when they obeyed.  

This excursion off on Romans 6 throws light on Rom. 2:29.  As this passage—Rom. 2:29--relates back to Col. 2:12 it shows, when combined with the study of Romans 6, that one cannot divorce faith from obedience.  Obedience is from the heart.  What is in the heart to produce this obedience?  Faith!  When understood that obedience is a part of saving faith, that there is no such thing as saving faith apart from obedience, I readily concede that salvation is by that kind of faith.  This faith always includes as an integral part of itself obedience. 

The trouble is the advocates of salvation by faith are generally such as do not define faith this way.  Their faith does not necessarily include any ideas of obedience thus water baptism is just kind of an option if I get to it, if I do it, when I do it, sort of thing.  When God says jump you cannot say I will if I want to, and when I want to, if I decide to.  That is neither faith nor obedience, it is rebellion.  How can one claim a circumcision of heart and talk of having the Spirit all the while saying it does not matter whether you obey what the Spirit has said, you can be saved whether you obey or do not obey?  Jesus, a man full of the Spirit, did not disobey a single commandment but we do and say it is okay and that we have the Spirit.     

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit still exists today then along with it we must have as a necessity those things that accompany it which include the spiritual gifts of the first century.  All Holy Spirit baptized individuals (the apostles) had miraculous spiritual gifts (2 Cor. 12:11-12).   Who ever heard of having the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not having spiritual gifts?  Do we have prophets today, do we have miracle workers today, do we still have revelation being given today?  Let each reader judge for themselves. 

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

 

 

 

  

 

 

Indifference – The Great Destroyer

Indifference refers to an attitude held by a person indicating a lack of zeal, commitment, and concern regarding whatever that individual is indifferent toward. 

I do not know of anything a person can succeed at long term with indifference dominating him or her.  Natural talent will only take a person so far.  There comes a time when to succeed you have to buckle down, get serious, and do the work.  This is true of the great athletes of the world, the great musicians, of people who are highly successful in their fields, and even the Einsteins of the world, and so how much more so of you and me? 

Of course, we are talking here about the significant things in life, things that matter and make a difference.  If you want to get a degree or degrees, a good education, if you want to have a successful marriage, if you want to succeed in your job or vocation, and if you want to go to heaven.  Yes, and if you want to go to heaven.

We are living in a time of a great falling away from spiritual matters, from Christianity.   The percentage of what are called the “Nones” continues to grow.  “Nones” are those who have abandoned faith in any kind of religion.  More and more people are coming to the decision that they do not need God in their life and they are not searching for him. 

From an article on the religionnews.com website published Aug. 5, 2019, I quote the title of an article found there, “‘Nones’ now as big as evangelicals, Catholics in the US.”  The article itself was dated March 21, 2019, but put online August 5^th.  It may or may not be online by the time you read this and the numbers will no doubt change with time becoming more or less but that has been and remains the trend over the past several years.  

Most churches I know about living as I do in the rural Midwest have declined drastically in membership over the last 50 years, some having closed their doors and others are on the verge of doing so.  People have lost interest in Christianity which is another way of saying they have become indifferent.  They are not seeking and thus they shall not find.  “Seek, and you will find.” (Matt. 7:7 NKJV)

If God and his word are matters of no serious concern to me, if God is only going to make my top 100 list of the most important things to me in my life, if he gets that high, then realistically what kind of hope do I have of salvation, of going to heaven?  To be indifferent is to not care.  If you do not care about God, about his will, about going to heaven, if you are disinterested in living a Christian life what joy do you bring to God?  You bring grief and sorrow like Israel and Judah in the Old Testament before they went into exile but joy, no.      

But, there is a lot of indifference abounding in many who proclaim Christianity.  It is not just the “Nones.”  A lot has been made of the fact that salvation from sin is a free gift from God.  This while true is seldom understood properly because seldom taught properly.  People have gotten it into their heads that their soul's salvation is solely dependent on God.  This lends itself to indifference.  There is nothing for me to do if God is going to do it all.  No need to seek God, from their point of few, despite the fact he says in his word, "He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6 NKJV)

The idea people seem to have is there is no need to study the Bible; God is love; God is grace; God is going to save everyone no matter what he or she believes or practices just as long as the person believes that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world and that belief can be held in the most abstract sort of way divorced from all action and commitment.  Put another way you can be indifferent and go to heaven. 

Attend services wherever you so desire, no matter what they teach or practice, or don't even attend anywhere if you don't want to.  It will make no difference just as long as you believe in Jesus.  That is generally the Christian (?) world we live in here in America today.  False teaching along this line has led to a lot of the indifference we see.

Indifference is one natural byproduct of denominationalism.  If it really does not matter what you believe or practice just so you believe in Jesus then certainly one can be indifferent about both doctrine and practice.  What difference does it make about either if we are all going to be saved anyway?  I thus see people who think they are going to be saved who never worship.  If they have a Bible they would have to hunt it before they could read it and then dust it off for it has sat that long unread and unused.  They never read it.

The scariest thing for me when it comes to one's loved ones having indifference towards God and salvation, toward spiritual matters, is that indifference is one of those types of sins that is nearly impossible to get people to see and thus to own up to and repent of.  They do not see themselves as being indifferent but are satisfied they are doing all that is necessary for salvation, even though it is nothing, and will be saved as they are.  Nothing is necessary for salvation for God will take care of it all is the thought.  This is a perversion of 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) 

The modern-day exegesis of this passage is that man has absolutely no obligations in any way toward God.  There is no need to read his word, there is no need to worship, there is no need to obey any of the commandments.  Just show up at Judgment Day and all will be fine.  Heb. 5:9 thus becomes meaningless, “And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” (Hebrews 5:9 NKJV)

Indifference is accompanied by satisfaction.  The satisfied do not repent.  The satisfied does not seek, knock, or search in any way for anything other than what satisfied already has for satisfied is satisfied.  It becomes, as a result of that, nearly impossible to get people who fit into that state of mind to a mindset of repentance.  They are not interested in studying or searching the scriptures for they are indifferent and content. 

What does the Bible say or teach about indifference? 

One of the first passages that comes to mind is Rev. 3:15-16 where Jesus is directing a message to the members of the church at Laodicea and says, "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.  So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16 NKJV)

Jesus is talking to Christians here.  Does it sound like they are in a saved state?  If you will read one verse further (verse 17) Jesus goes on explaining, "Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.'" (Rev. 3:17 NKJV)  They were perfectly satisfied.  Please note carefully the words from this passage, "have need of nothing" expressing their satisfaction.   They were indifferent toward doing anything other than what they were doing.

"If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 NKJV)  Can one go to heaven who does not love God?  “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (1 Cor. 16:22 NKJV)  How do you keep the commandments if you are indifferent?  Is love indifferent?  Is love uncommitted? 

In another statement, Jesus said, "Whoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:27 NKJV)  What kind of cross does the indifferent person bear for Christ?  Can such a person be a disciple of Jesus?  What does the text say? 

In the Old Testament God said with respect to the people of Israel through the prophet Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6 NKJV)  If it happened to them could it not happen to people today?  The indifferent cannot gain knowledge of God for the attitude of indifference creates no desire to seek and learn.  Mr. Indifference is also Mr. Satisfied with the way things are and with what little knowledge he already has.

Jesus said, "Seek, and you will find," (Matt. 7:7 NKJV) but one's indifference keeps him from seeking and thus from finding.  We are to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" (Matt. 6:33 NKJV) but the indifferent have no will to seek let alone seek first.

The Bible teaches the love of God, or love for God, is keeping his commandments.  "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  Jesus said, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." (John 14:21 NKJV)  "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word." (John 14:23 NKJV)  "He who does not love me does not keep my words." (John 14:24 NKJV)

The indifferent cannot do that.  Why?  Because he/she is too indifferent to read, study, and learn the word that Jesus would have them keep.  They are satisfied with what they have.  They will never wear a Bible out from use.  They do not know the truth from study of the truth.  What they know is only what they have heard which may or may not be the truth and what they believe is that which has satisfied them whether it be truth or error (they know not the difference).

Many are going to die eternally simply because they did not care enough to be saved.  Jesus taught a great deal about the idea of being ready, of making preparation, for his return and the Day of Judgment.  The parable of the ten virgins comes immediately to mind.  Another passage that comes to mind is found in Matt. 22:11, the account of the man who came into the wedding unprepared and as a result was cast out. 

The indifferent, due to that indifference, are negligent and do not prepare and consequently, unless they can be brought to a change of heart cannot be saved.  They live in a continual state of unpreparedness.

Indifference is a symptom of a spiritually diseased heart.  The heart is not where it ought to be as it is concentrated on the self and this world.  It is full of pride; I'm okay; I don't need any more religion than I have.  It is presumptuous and assumes God will save me as I am.  It is rebellious against God (we will do it my way).

The question becomes, for those of us who care about people we fear may be in this state, is what can we do about it?  Here I must stop.  I cannot write any more for how does one answer this question?  If a person is indifferent, satisfied, does not care, then how do you get them to care?  This is why this is one of the most fearful sins a person will ever run up against.  How do you get a person to care that does not care?  How do you move a satisfied person into a state of dissatisfaction where he can repent?

If a person has committed a sexually immoral sin or sins of many other kinds, sinful acts versus sinful attitudes, he/she probably knows what they did was wrong and feels some pang of guilt.  There is hope there.  You can get a person like that to repent but how do you get the indifferent, those who do not care, to repent?  It is your turn now to write the next article and tell me the answer.   

(Originally written July 11, 2011)

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

For By Grace You Have Been Saved Through Faith Alone

No, Eph. 2:8-9 does not read that way but that is the way most seem to want to read it.  Let me quote the verses for you from the New King James version. 

"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." 

No believer would discount the grace of God in man's salvation.  You surely do not believe you deserve to be saved, do you?  If you cannot count your own sins I suspect it would not be too hard to find someone who would be willing to do it for you.  And, I add, that is to say nothing of those hidden sins that no man can see in another, those sins that only God knows about you. 

Many people are unaware that evil thoughts are sinful in God's sight.  "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.  These are the things which defile a man." (Matt. 15:19-20 NKJV)  "There is none righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10 NKJV)  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)  That means me; it means you. 

So, I am thankful for grace for my sins but it distresses me to see what man has done to Eph. 2:8-9.  The passage has been perverted; the perversion has been made the be-all and end-all of God's teaching on the subject.  It is as if no other verses in the Bible have any authority on the topic of salvation.  If God has spoken elsewhere it makes no difference for these two verses (I should say the perversion of them) are all we will take into account and accept.  We tell God do not waste your time telling me anything else for I do not want to hear it. 

We are unwilling to accept that the same man who wrote Eph. 2:8-9 by inspiration of the Holy Spirit also wrote other books of the New Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and also spoke in those books on the subject of salvation.  We forget the Psalmist said, "The entirety of your word is truth." (Psalms 119:160) 

We pit Paul against himself to make sure that Eph. 2:8-9 (our perversion of it) remains on a pedestal above all other passages on the subject.  The passage in Eph. 2 teaches the truth on how man is saved when properly understood and not perverted but my problem is with the perversion.  The passage is a summary statement of how man comes to have salvation but where the trouble comes is man's willingness to define the terms there as he very well sees fit and desires.  For example, who gets to define terms like grace, faith, and works?  And, that is where the perversion comes in. 

Let me define grace for you the way it is commonly defined by man--grace is God doing all the work and me not lifting even my little finger.  It is total unconditional salvation.  The idea is if God makes any demand on me (puts a condition on salvation) it cannot be grace.  Well, tell that to Noah who found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8 NKJV) but nevertheless had to build an ark to be saved. 

Faith is commonly defined, in this context (Eph. 2:8), as what I believe.  It is subjective, not objective; it does not depend on a book, chapter, and verse because it is what I believe.  I knew a lady who once said words to the effect that she did not care what Paul said about women preachers.  She knew what she believed was her idea.   That is how faith is commonly defined among men today as it relates to Eph. 2:8-9. 

Works is defined as being anything that requires me to take a single breath.  If I have to lift my eyelids it is salvation by works.  That is the way much of so-called Christendom views works as it relates to salvation. 

I totally reject all of the above. It is a perversion of truth.  It is a perversion of the teaching of Eph. 2:8-9.  Let us hear a little from Paul, the one no one seems to be willing to listen to except in Eph. 2:8-9.  Let him explain himself. 

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.  For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:21-24 NKJV) 

Does this sound familiar to Eph. 2:8-9?  It ought to.  But, how does the passage say we are justified by faith and grace?  Answer--"through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (v. 24) 

Well, how does Paul say a man enters Christ Jesus where this redemption is--redemption "is in Christ Jesus?"  He says just two chapters later, "do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  Was this a slip of the tongue or of the pen?  No, for he says it again, "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)  By the way, can you put on Christ without baptism?  If so where is the verse that says so?  (see also 1 Cor. 12:13) 

Why is a man a son of God through faith in Christ Jesus?  Because he was baptized into Christ.  Reread Gal. 3:26-27 again.  I challenge one and all to find even a single passage of scripture in the New Testament that tells you how to get into Christ outside of baptism. 

By faith, a man is led to be baptized into Christ Jesus.  No one would or could be baptized into Christ without first having faith in him.  Forgiving grace is found in Christ.  The reader will see readily that I do not pit Paul against himself.  Faith, grace, and baptism all fit together into one package.  Paul meant what he said in every single passage of scripture he wrote but those who interpret Eph. 2:8-9 the way most do today have him fighting himself for they cannot admit he meant what he said in passages like Gal. 3:26-27. 

They cannot understand why he arose and was baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16) unless of course the passage does not mean what it literally says.  They have to symbolize all such passages (and dream up what the symbols are supposed to mean for the Bible does not tell them).  Paul could not have literally meant that a man enters Christ by baptism no matter what he said about it for that would mean one had to be baptized to be a Christian, to be in Christ, the very thing they deny.  They thus pit Paul against himself by their man-made tradition. 

Paul was baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16) and taught that one enters Christ by baptism.  He said Christ is the savior of the body (Eph. 5:23) and that the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23) but says that body is entered through baptism.  "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  If Christ is the Savior of the body and you are baptized into that body how are you going to be saved without being baptized (for the remission of your sins--Acts 2:38, Acts 2:16) the same way Paul was baptized?  This body one is baptized into, the body of Christ, the church, is cleansed "with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV)  No washing of water (baptism) then no cleansing. 

Paul, unlike those today, did not see a conflict between being saved by grace through faith and being baptized for the remission of sins.  As said earlier, it was all part of one package.  Baptism for the remission of sins is a part of God's grace.  A man is led to it by faith. 

When Paul was baptized to wash away his sins he did not see that as salvation by works but salvation by a living faith (by grace you have been saved through faith).  When Ananias, a Holy Spirit filled man sent by God to Paul, told him to "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16 NKJV) faith led him to believe that this was God speaking to him.  When he complied with God's command he was, you get to choose:  (a) justified by faith (b) justified by works. 

Let me ask another question.  What if Paul had refused to be baptized to wash away his sins?  Would his faith have been a living faith or a dead faith?  When you answer that one you will know why you will find baptism in a proper exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9.  The way Eph. 2:8-9 is commonly understood today it demands a dead faith for there will be no baptism to wash away your sins found in it according to the common understanding. 

Paul believed and obeyed and was saved by grace.  We disbelieve and disobey and say we are saved by grace.  Friends, there is a world of difference in those two positions.  Both cannot be right.    

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

 

 

 

 

Sinning Without Law

That man has always been under some kind of law from God I think there is little doubt.  We know Adam and Eve were under law but what about those who came after them but before the Law of Moses?  The flood came upon mankind because of "wickedness" and "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5 NKJV)  The earth was "corrupt before God" and "filled with violence." (Gen. 6:11 NKJV)  Peter spoke of the world before the flood as "the world of the ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV)

Were these people innocent, not having a law of God before them for guidance and direction in life?  Did they not have a way of knowing right from wrong, good from evil?  There is no evidence we have of a written law but we do know Noah was "a preacher of righteousness." (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV)  How did Noah know what was righteous and what was not?  What is my point?  It is threefold:  (1) God had a law by which man was to live even if unwritten, (2) man had some means by which to know God's will and (3) man could sin "without law," that is, in this case, without written law.  God would and did hold man responsible for man's lawlessness by means of the flood.

Moving up to the account of the events surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the Bible says, "The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD." (Gen. 13:13 NKJV)  Lamentations 4:6 speaks of “the sin of Sodom.” (NKJV, NAS)  But, there was no written law.  They sinned against God but they sinned without law but only in the sense of written law.  God had a standard, a law, against their conduct whether written or not. 

To elaborate Peter says, speaking of Lot and his time in Sodom, "That righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds." (2 Peter 2:8 NKJV)  Lot saw them; Peter called them "lawless deeds" so there was law there even without a formal code, as was later found in the law of Moses.

I have said all of this to lay some background material for Paul's discussion of the sins of the Gentiles in Romans 1.  (I remind the reader the Gentiles were never given the Law of Moses; it was given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai while the Gentiles remained without a formal law code or written law from God.)  I cannot quote it all here but the reader would be advised to stop and read Rom. 1:18-32 before proceeding.  Paul lists the sins of the Gentiles, especially in Rom. 1:29-32.  How did the Gentiles come to know these things were sins?  They had no written law and in that sense they were "without law," a phrase Paul uses later in Rom. 2:12.

I ask again, how did the Gentiles come to know these listed sins were sins when they were without law?  That they did know is evident for Paul says in Rom. 1:32, "Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (NKJV)  They knew; Paul says so.

I do not propose in this piece to give you answers that would be mere speculation on my part as to how the Gentiles were to know sin from righteousness other than the fact that some things ought to be self-evident to all men.  The Gentiles went for thousands of years, up until Christ, without any kind of formal law from God but they "sinned without law." (Rom. 2:12 NKJV)  One might ask how can this be since "sin is the transgression of the law?" (1 John 3:4 KJV)  That is the question.

This is my opinion and mark it down as that, just opinion, which is that God has law (or put another way a set of standards for conduct) whether it is given to man or not and any violation of that law is sin.  For example, as far as we know God never told Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel not to murder or kill.  Does that mean Cain did not sin when he murdered his brother?  (Should one not know instinctively that this is sin?)

Sin is the transgression of God's law but one can sin without a formal law being in place.  How would one do that?  Well, one could not do it today since all men today are under the law of Christ but back in Old Testament times after Mt. Sinai and God's covenant that was made there with the Jews things were different.  The world was divided thereafter into two groups of humanity.  You were either a Jew or a Gentile (anyone not a Jew was a Gentile).  To the Jews, God gave a formal law—the Law of Moses.  The rest of humanity was without law, that is without a written formal code of law.

The Jews obviously sinned anytime they broke the Law of Moses.  The Gentiles sinned without law, without a formal law code such as the Law of Moses.  However, that does not mean they did not break God's law for God has a standard of right and wrong whether it has been delivered to man formally or not.

Sin is a transgression of God's law period.  Romans 1:18-32 is the Holy Spirit's listing of and condemnation of the sins of the Gentiles.  Paul says, "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) thus the Gentiles were under condemnation for the very reason that they had transgressed God's law.  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23 NKJV), Paul said in Rom. 3:23, but that would not be true of the Gentiles in the period under discussion if they had no law of God to transgress.

Where did this law that was never formally given to the Gentiles, that the Gentiles lived under and a law they could and did violate, come from since it was not formally given?  Some of it came, evidently, naturally or instinctively as Rom. 2:14 says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the Law, these not having the Law, are a law to themselves." (NAS)   

The law the Gentiles lived under was not as strict as that the Jews lived under.  Of that, there can be little to no doubt.  When the scriptures talk about doing instinctively the things of the Law they are surely not speaking of offerings, sacrifices, clean and unclean foods, etc., the kinds of things that were regulated in detail and could only be known by a direct revelation from God (the very thing the Gentiles did not have).  The scriptures thus had to be speaking of things that relate to man's relationship with his fellowman and of his reverence toward God.  Paul summed up the fulfillment of the law when he said, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Gal. 5:14 NKJV)  A Gentile was capable of doing that without a formal written code.

Did anyone, Jew or Gentile, ever live perfectly without sinning against the law under which he lived?  Of course not!  That is the point Paul is driving home in Romans chapters 1 and 2.  He says, "We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" (Rom. 3:9-10 NAS)

Paul says, "Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Rom. 3:20 NAS)  Does this mean that since the Gentiles did not have a formal written code or even an oral code from God they had no knowledge of sin?  No!  Why not?  Paul speaks of "the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves." (Rom. 2:15 NAS)  Is there a man, living or dead, Jesus being the exception, who ever lived to manhood who could honestly say he never violated his own code of conduct, his sense of right versus wrong, never ever violated his own conscience?  Our own heart has condemned us all at one point in time or another.

Law has condemned all men, even those the Bible refers to as being "without law" for that phrase means only without a legal code of the likes of the Law of Moses. 

There is a passage in Rom. 5 that raises questions that ought to be dealt with.  It reads as follows:  "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13 NKJV)

If a person were to read this for the first time ever and have no knowledge of the Bible he would think that God did not punish sin or hold man accountable for sin before the Law of Moses but we have already discussed the account of the flood and why it came and talked about Sodom and Gomorrah and we have even discussed how God held the Gentiles to account for their sins as recorded in chapter one of this very same book—the book of Romans.  We have also discussed how men had law but just not a law of a formal code given by direct revelation and we have shown how the Gentiles violated the law or light they did have.

My take on this verse (Rom. 5:13) then is this—we take it at face value.  What do I mean?  It is a simple declaration, "sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13 NKJV)  Thus, if sin exists at any place, anywhere, or anytime among anyone then there was a law that was violated even though that law may not have been in the form of a written or oral code and may not have been in the form of a specific commandment such as Adam was given.  Put another way one could say it is impossible to sin against a law that does not exist thus if there is sin there is law.

If Gentiles who lived in the period between Adam and Moses were eternally lost because of sin how could it be said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (they had no law given by revelation as did the Jews)?  We have already shown the wickedness of many in that time.  The answer is there was law, just not a written code of the nature of the Law of Moses.  I add in closing I do not presume to become the judge of the Gentiles before the Christian dispensation.  That is God's realm, not mine.  I am only saying God was not unjust in those he condemned because they were "without law." 

What God will do with the Gentiles of those ages past who lived without a written code is a question only he has the answer to.  I do know each of us will stand before the Lord on the Day of Judgment individually, not as a group, to answer for our own deeds.   Luke 12:47-48 seems to teach we will be judged to an extent on our ability to know and do.  My purpose in writing this article was certainly not to make myself a judge of the Gentiles or to answer questions men have been contemplating for centuries but I do have an answer.  "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25 NKJV)   

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