When Did Obedience Become Legalism

We seem to be living in a time in the present Christian era where people seem to feel that all that matters in Christianity is love and God’s grace, when obedience is seen as legalism, and where it is felt that people do not have to obey biblical commands for salvation except, of course, for the command to believe in Jesus as the Savior.

Grace is made cheap. Live as you like, call yourself a Christian, and God’s grace will cover you. It is said it is what is in the heart, generally defined as the emotions, that counts. Feelings and emotions are defined as love for God. God’s grace will cover a life of sin just so a person believes in God in some abstract sense. I might add if you doubt this just attend a few funerals and see if you can learn of any deceased who are not already in heaven based on the conversations you hear and the preaching that is done there.

People talk about love for God all the time. It is in their heart (their emotions). Yet, quote a passage to them like 1 John 5:2-3, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (NKJV) and you immediately have problems for that is not what they want to hear. It is not how they want love defined. Love is emotion, not obedience, in their way of looking at things.

In 1 Cor. 13 we have Paul discussing love in verses 4-8. In verse 6 of that chapter he says love “does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth.” (NKJV) Iniquity is the opposite of obedience. One can no more join love with iniquity than he can a lamb with a lion. But we have come to believe God’s grace covers everything and obedience is not necessary. We now accept iniquity because we are no longer willing to accept the Bible as the standard of authority for what is holy and right versus what is wrong.

To condemn sin as did John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus is today seen to be unloving, intolerant, and judgmental, and thus unchristian in the minds of many. Yet, in the New Testament, Paul by the Holy Spirit, commanded Timothy to reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2 NAS) and not go along with or hold his silence in the presence of men sinning. Titus was told not only to rebuke but to do so sharply (Titus 2:13, see also Titus 2:15). The Ephesians were told, thus meaning it is applicable to us as well, to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Eph. 5:11 ESV) But today that is seen as sticking your nose in where it does not belong and we are no longer to call anything short of murder, rape, or robbery and such like as sin.

Yes, obedience to Bible standards of conduct (commands) is now seen as legalism. Sin is renamed and given polite names or, as is often the case, simply dropped off the radar altogether. Fornication is an example of a sin that has dropped off the radar screen and out of sight. Hardly anyone takes it to be a sin today. It is commonly expected that just about every young person is going to engage in it and certainly every unmarried adult. It is just taken for granted as being a normal part of society and not a serious sin at all. What happened to the Bible?

Homosexuality has disappeared from the American consciousness as sinful. The majority approve of it and applaud it and gay marriage. To those who object we speak of their intolerance and hate. We call it a civil right. However, the Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” (Isa 5:20 NJKV) And surely, those who read this know the New Testament condemns homosexuality. If not, read 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

Adulterous marriages are celebrated as God-approved despite the Bible’s teaching on adultery. This listing of sins could go on almost endlessly, sins that in our culture are no longer considered sinful despite what the Bible teaches. Sin is no longer considered a serious thing in our culture.

The religiously liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) say God loves all men (true) so we say we can rejoice in Christian fellowship with those actively practicing these and other sins--no repentance required. Of course, in doing so we destroy the Bible as written but the national desire today is to abandon the Bible altogether as a standard and make our own Bible even if unwritten.

The way we do that is by making the Bible we have mean anything we want it to mean and abandon all rational exegesis. We simply say it does not mean what it seems to say. It means what we say it means, not what it says. In that, we are much like the Catholics who say Jesus was the only child Mary ever had. Of course, all our conclusions are based on love, love the way we, not God, define it. We are perverting the faith and making up our own religion as did the Jews of Jesus’ day. They were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3 NKJV) and we seem to be doing the same thing.

Jesus said, “But why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46 NKJV) Does anyone have an answer? Love means obedience and obedience, despite the cry to the contrary, is not legalism.

Did you ever give it thought that if obedience is legalism Jesus was the biggest legalist of all time? He kept every commandment and never sinned once. He said, “I always do those things that please him.” (John 8:29 NKJV) He was obedient to death (Phil. 2:8). He was the only one who ever kept the law of God perfectly, obedient in every detail.

Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, not once. He condemned them for hypocrisy, for not keeping the law, for making commandments and adding them to God’s word and making them of equal force with God’s word binding them on men. We often today say they were legalists and I do not object to that designation of them but I add this for clarification--their legalism was not for God’s law but for the law they had made and added to his law.

Jesus said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:19 NKJV)

Yes, in the passage just quoted Jesus was speaking to an audience who were living under the Law of Moses but where, oh where, have people come up with this modern-day idea that Jesus just does not care about obedience anymore? Put another way, or phrased another way, what has happened to sin? When did it go out of existence? But that is where we are today and it is an idea that is fairly prevalent among a significant number of people who consider themselves to be Christians.

I give people credit in a place where perhaps some others would not. Some would say we have come to this place because people today are just ignorant of God’s word. Well, there is truth in that for sure but why is it so? Is there a shortage of Bibles? No, that is not it. There is a lack of will to read them--that is for sure. And there is a lack of a will to believe them and obey them. Peter said there was such a thing as people who are “willingly…ignorant.” (2 Peter 3:5 KJV) If we do not read and study how can we keep from falling into the category of those who are willingly ignorant?

But, as I said, I am more inclined to give people credit in the knowledge department than some others believing for the most part, people do know right from wrong. I believe the cry “legalism” against the teaching of obedience is in reality a smoke screen to cover up and make an excuse for a life lived for self, a worldly life. It is my life and I want to live it the way I want to. The claim of being saved solely by love and God’s grace provides the cover one needs for such a life to legitimize it before the public.

We all tend to try and hide the wrong we know we are doing and one of the best ways (?) of doing that is to legitimize it--get everyone else to think what we are doing is not wrong. Hey, everybody else is doing it--right? How can it be wrong then? The Pharisees of Jesus’ time were full of sin and yet to the general public they appeared to be righteous. “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men.” (Matt. 23:28 NKJV) They had gotten the people of their day to swallow their religion with all the additions and man-made commandments they had made.

The standard for a righteous man has been so lowered over the years that in the public’s eyes even if you have not worshipped the Lord in a regular assembly of the saints for the past 20 years you are still headed straight to heaven just so you are a believer.

If you had the opportunity to get a hold of an old church roll book from say 100 years ago you would probably be shocked as you would see notations made in the margins of people being withdrawn from as per 2 Thess. 3:6, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (NKJV)

Since we today have decided what love is and have taken it out of God’s hands it is no longer considered to be an act of love to withdraw from sinners who will not repent even though the purpose was “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Cor. 5:5 NKJV) That is about as noble and as loving a reason as one could have and yet today if we were to practice discipline in the church by withdrawing fellowship from those living in sin and who will not repent it would be considered unloving and unchristian even though an inspired apostle commanded it. It would be considered legalism gone wild. Have we made our own religion as did the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers of Jesus’ day?

It is getting very hard to be a preacher today unless you do not mind going along with the crowd. The trouble is the crowd is heading to a hot, hot spot and the preacher will be going with them if he does not preach against sin. The preacher is to preach the truth and support it, not go along with the crowd.

My whole point in this article is how we have come to the point in faith where the faith we have is no longer associated with obedience and obedience is now seen as legalism. The truth is disobedience is sin. Obedience is faithfulness. There are far worse things that can happen to a man than to be called a legalist by one who does not want to obey.

“And having been perfected (Jesus-DS), he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” (Heb. 5:9 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) Do you want to be like Jesus? If so start condemning sin and be obedient. You will not be working your way to heaven in doing so. You will simply be an obedient Christian, not a disobedient one. Of the two whom do you think will receive God’s grace on the last day?

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

 

Faith, Works, Baptism, and Obedience

Many believe that since the Bible teaches justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) baptism is excluded as an act essential to salvation despite many passages that teach just the opposite (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26, 1 Cor. 12:13 compared with Eph. 5:23 [baptized into one body, Christ the Savior of the body], John 3:5, Gal. 3:26-27, etc.). It is the burden of this article to show the fallacy of this belief.

In the first place, the Bible teaches that baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done, just the opposite, as stated in Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is a reference to baptism and is excluded by Paul as being a work of righteousness which we have done that in itself saves us apart from God’s mercy. What is baptism then? It is a part of God’s means of extending his mercy to mankind. Baptism is God showing us kindness. It is God through grace giving us a means to be saved by his mercy.

Water baptism amounts to nothing, is worthless, without God behind it in his compassion for us. When Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan River for his cleansing from leprosy (2 Kings 5) it would not have made an ounce of difference without God being behind the command with the extension of his grace. The water did not cleanse Naaman, God did, but Naaman was not going to be cleansed without dipping in the Jordan those seven times, without obeying the command to do so. Why can’t we see the parallel with baptism in our day?

One acquainted with the New Testament cannot read Titus 3:5 without being reminded of John 3:5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV) Paul, in Titus, is saying what Jesus said in John. To be saved in Titus is to enter the kingdom of God in John. To be saved is to be in the kingdom of God, where the saved are.

Indeed, Paul teaches justification by faith. "The just shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:17 NKJV) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV) "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, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

One cannot enter the waters of baptism without faith in what God said about doing so and expect the cleansing of sin. If I do not believe what God said about it I have not acted in faith and cannot be justified by faith.

In the book of Romans, from which I have just quoted, Paul is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Greeks. The Jews came to Christianity out of the background of Judaism and the Law of Moses. Much of what Paul writes in Romans is directed to the Jews whose inclination through much of the first century was to try and hang on to both the Law of Moses and to Christ at the same time. The Law of Moses was a law system, not a faith system. What was the problem with the Law of Moses, a works system of salvation?

Paul tells us, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'" (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) James says, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV) This is the problem not just with the Law of Moses but with any and all law systems God might give man. As soon as a man violates one law, justice demands satisfaction--punishment--"the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) To violate a law of God, any law he gives, is unrighteousness, is sin. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4 KJV)

Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live. Law condemns all of us for we have all broken God's law. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV) Thus, "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16c NKJV) The word "the" in Gal 2:16 just quoted is not found in the original but was added by the translators in both instances. When translated without the additions, it reads as follows: "By works of law no flesh shall be justified." If you check an interlinear you will find this to be true. What is the point?

The point is, while it is true Paul had specific reference to the Law of Moses because that is the law his audience had in mind, he phrases his statement in such a way as to include all law. No one will ever get to heaven by perfect keeping of works of law. Paul says the same thing in Rom. 3:28 where again the word "the" has been added by translators and is not in the original. It thus should read as follows: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of ("the" omitted here is not in the original manuscripts--DS) law." (NKJV) Deeds are works.

A question thus arises. If I am not saved by works of law why be concerned with obedience? Paul knew this was what some would conclude and he begins to address that issue in Rom. 6:1 where he says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (NKJV) Remember it is "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Paul never meant to imply that obedience was optional. Paul responds vigorously saying, "God forbid" (ASV, KJV), "By no means!" (ESV), "May it never be" (NAS), "Certainly not!" (NKJV) He says, "How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Rom. 6:2 NKJV)

He then says, "Do you not know," introducing the subject of baptism, "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." (Rom. 6:3-4 NKJV) Whose death? Into Christ's death but watch it closely for up pops verse 8, "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." (NKJV) So we are baptized into Christ's death but that is also the place where "we died with Christ." When we arise from this death we "should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) for we have been granted a new spiritual life and we should "present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead." (Rom. 6:13 NKJV) We have been "set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18 NKJV), but when? When we died to it, "For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Rom. 6:7 NKJV, see also Rom. 6:2) When did we die? In baptism (Rom. 6:4). Thus no baptism, then no death, then no being freed from sin. This is in perfect accord with Acts 2:38 and the long list of other passages on baptism referenced in the very first paragraph of this article.

Now who is Paul talking to? To Christians who have been justified by faith, not by works. Did Paul consider baptism to be a work of the kind of which he had been talking about by which a man could not be saved? Not at all! How then did he consider it? As a part of being justified by faith.

Paul begins the book of Romans with this statement in chapter 1 verse 5 saying he had been given grace and apostleship "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name's sake." (NAS) The NKJV says, "among all nations for his name" instead of "all the Gentiles." But what was the objective? Obedience of faith! Why? Because without obedience faith is dead and cannot save anyone and that is from the get-go, from the very beginning. "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:26 NKJV)

When Peter stands up on the Day of Pentecost and preaches the first gospel sermon ever, creates by his preaching faith in those who hear, and then tells them what to do in response to their question asking what they can do he responds by saying, "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) You cannot tell me they were justified by faith if their response was "I don't think so right now, maybe later." Nor can you tell me they were justified by faith if they failed to believe the word of God that baptism was for the remission of sins, just as Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said, for that would not be belief but unbelief or disbelief. It would be the same as calling God a liar.

Paul closes the book of Romans the same way he opened it, "has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith." (Rom. 16:26 NAS) “Obedience of faith” is obedience led by faith or obedience because of faith or out of faith. What does that mean then? Faith must precede obedience. The justifying faith Paul was talking about in the book of Romans was a faith that led to obedience. Faith must precede obedience before you can have obedience out of faith.

There has never been a baptism acceptable to God but what it was first preceded by faith and submitted to by faith. This in itself invalidates infant baptism as the infant is incapable of having faith. Faith saves because it believes God and does not doubt; therefore, it acts. Without obedience (acts, works, call it what you will), faith never really lives and is dead from the beginning and thus never saved the man at any point in time. If dead faith saved, the demons would be saved for James says they believe (James 2:19). The same could be said of those rulers who believed in Jesus but did not confess him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Baptism is the dividing line between living faith and dead faith. Why? Is it because I said so? No! It is because Paul said when we arise from baptism that we "should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27 NKJV). In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV). The old man died in baptism and we arise a new creation. If we are saved before baptism (a baptism growing out of faith) the question ought to be asked who is it that dies in baptism? Is it a saved man? Paul teaches that we die in baptism in the Romans 6:2-8 passage, but why would you want to put a saved man to death? Why kill a saved man? That is the position they put themselves in who believe we are saved by faith before baptism. This is a question that needs an answer.

I want to remind the reader once again of what Paul said of baptism in Titus 3:5, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) God gave us baptism (the washing of regeneration) as a part of his saving mercy towards us, not as a work of righteousness which we have done that works our way to heaven.

Baptism puts us into Christ where salvation is. Paul says in this very book of Romans, where he promotes the doctrine of justification by faith, that there is "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:1 NKJV) In the same book he tells us how we got into Christ Jesus where there is no condemnation. He says, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus …" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV).

This idea of separating faith from baptism is all man's doing. You'll not find it in the Bible. Paul says in the Galatian letter, "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) How do you get into Christ? Paul tells us a second time in this passage, that is if we did not get it the first time in the Roman passage just quoted in the prior paragraph. But, Paul tells us more. What?

He tells us you cannot separate faith from baptism unless you do it on your own initiative. The word "for" beginning in verse 27 of Galatians 3 ties it to verse 26. You cannot separate the two sentences. There is more.

Can one put on Christ without baptism? Those who say you can ought to provide the passage that tells us that. According to this Galatian passage it is done by baptism. I have never found another passage anywhere that has given an alternative.

Paul says those who are sons of God were baptized and thereby put on Christ. There is a law of exclusion in play here. If you were not baptized you did not put on Christ in baptism and are therefore excluded from being a son of God.

To summarize, "the just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38 NKJV) but it is such a faith that when it hears it believes and obeys and is not indifferent to obedience. It is thus a living faith. It does not fear that obedience is working your way to heaven. Neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever feared that obedience would be looked upon by God as an attempt to work your way to heaven. Baptism is God’s extension of grace to us, his means of cleansing us, chosen by him, not us, and not a part of works of righteousness that we have done that merit salvation.  

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

Confirmation Sunday No Bibles Required

Our local paper has an article in it this week by a woman pastor/preacher from one of the nearby denominations entitled, "What is Confirmation?" which she wanted to explain since they have a confirmation Sunday planned. Needless to say, since I have never read of such a thing in the Bible and have known many people in this particular denomination over the years I ended up reading the piece knowing all the while that the silence of the Bible on a subject has never stopped a denomination from its own inventions and desires as pertains to its faith, worship, and practice.

After reading the article I went to my e-sword concordance and searched on the word "confirmation." I did find it in 2 locations. Paul spoke about "confirmation of the gospel" in Philippians 1:7 and the writer of the book of Hebrews spoke of how an "oath for confirmation" (Heb. 6:16) is for men an end of all dispute making an observation about secular matters among men to make a greater point about the confirmation God has made to man. Another search on the word "confirm" only brought up 2 hits (Rom. 15:8 and 1 Cor. 1:8), and like the references above, neither has relevance for the practice of a "confirmation Sunday," a thing unknown in scripture.

So what are we doing here? Are we free to just make up worship practices to suit ourselves? The lady says in her article, and I quote directly from it, "Confirmation is a rite done in the church during worship." You cannot find such an animal in the New Testament, but you can find it in this denomination which went outside the New Testament for its practice and authority. Who has such authority? I would think it would take a bold person to say I'll bring into the worship whatever I want whether I can find it in the New Testament or not.

Jesus himself said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV) Since God's word is truth, "your word is truth" (John 17:17 NKJV), and I "must" worship in truth, it seems to me I need a little truth (word of God) for what I practice in worship to God. Where is this truth, confirmation, found in God's word? I looked for it but could not find it. Am I to assume this group does not care about finding any word of God for their practice?

The lady attempts to give the history of confirmation so people like me can get a handle on it, but guess where she starts with that history. Are you guessing the New Testament and the first century? Better guess again. She starts not in the first century but in the third, approximately 200 years after the New Testament was signed, sealed, and delivered as God's new covenant or law for man "once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3 NKJV) She thus goes outside the word of God to the word of men to get her “confirmation Sunday.’’ Of course, I already knew it was not in the New Testament, as you also know if you have ever read it.

The lady says in the early church, early perhaps but not in the first-century church, not in the New Testament church, confirmation was associated with baptism. I understand from what she wrote that a bishop would confirm a new convert after his/her baptism, and sometimes quite a long while after that baptism. Confirmation consisted of some formula of words a bishop would utter in some kind of formal church setting or service, according to her, to symbolize the presence of the Holy Spirit in baptism and says it involved laying on of hands and anointing with oil.

I did a ChatGPT search on the topic and it seems to agree with what she said. I quote it: “The sacrament of Confirmation involves a person, often a young adult, receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by a bishop or a priest, usually accompanied by anointing with chrism (sacred oil).’’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “It increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.” At a site called aboutcatholics.com, I found this, “It is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.”

No, it is not. Confirmation does not grant you the power to speak in tongues, perform miracles, or teach infallibly, let alone raise the dead.

The lady goes on to say, "Up until the Reformation the Church retained Confirmation as a sacrament but gave, over the centuries, many explanations." Amen to that. I doubt not the truth in that. When you invent ways to worship unknown to the word of God many explanations as to what you are doing and why are likely. God is owed an explanation as well as man. If you are giving many stories (explanations) how do you decide which one to give to Jesus on the Day of Judgment when he asks you what this was all about and why?

The lady preacher (???) goes on to say that in her denomination that confirmation has become an educational event. It is a rite done in worship she says. I ask by whose authority, man's or God's?

The Bible says, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Col. 3:17 NKJV) It is a little hard to see how one can do things in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus said nothing. Can we invent things to do in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can we just make up things in our worship and say we are doing those things in the name of the Lord Jesus and have his approval? Is that how it works? It is certainly clear historically that Confirmation was a man-made invention. It did not come from scripture. However, if you can just make things up and claim you are doing them in the name of the Lord Jesus I guess anything goes. Perhaps we can have Christian ballet or Christian pantomime and who knows what else.

She says it is a public expression reconfirming the baptism received as an infant. Book, chapter, and verse, please? Don't hold your breath waiting for scripture. You will die of old age before you ever get scripture for this, for it does not exist in the word of God.

As for infant baptism, it is another topic for another day. If an infant can be baptized scripturally I do not see why Tator, my basset hound, cannot be baptized as well, for there is as much Bible authority to baptize him as there is an infant who can know no more than Tator does about what is going on and why. The Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6 NKJV) The infant cannot go to God in faith or act by faith nor does he/she need to as one is accountable for sin only when he/she has sinned.

The infant is born sin-free, not born in sin. If you say the baby is a sinner, name the sin. Sin is not inherited. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.” (Ezek. 18:20 NKJV) An infant can inherit a lot of things, but sin is not one of them.

There is sin involved in baptizing the infant, but not on the infant's part. It is on the part of those who put the infant through this and then allow him/her, when they come to an age of accountability, to be deceived into thinking they obeyed God in baptism. You lie to them. The child never obeyed anything as an infant, nor could he. It was impossible, and what is impossible God does not require. Yes, God requires baptism but not of babies.

I have no idea why people want to be in a denomination that has no more respect for the Bible than this one. The reality is they do not need a Bible for they have created their own religion and just adopted as much of the Bible as they want, leaving the rest alone, and have added the commandments of men to what they have adopted.

As for the lady preacher, Paul said (but does it matter with them?), "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12 NKJV) Yes, everyone is entitled to their own religion but just be truthful about it. Don't say it is Bible based when it is not. At least the Catholics were honest enough to try and burn Bibles and those who translated them, or in some cases those caught with them. There is some consistency there. As for me, I want nothing to do with either the denominations or the Catholics. "And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7 NKJV)

(This was written many years ago, revised just a tad, a little added, but still as applicable today as when it was first written.)

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

Saved By Jesus Outside The Church

It is not uncommon to hear people express their opinion that organized religion (the church) has nothing to do with salvation; all that matters, it is said, is whether or not one has a personal relationship with Jesus.

I do not know where this "personal relationship with Jesus" language came from for if you type in the phrase in any online Bible concordance you will not get a single return. It is a man-made phrase that is not found anywhere in scripture. I am not fond of terminology that cannot be found in scripture. Why not express biblical concepts in biblical language?

All of that aside, I want to deal with the idea that one can develop this relationship with Jesus on a personal level that will save himself outside the church. If a person means they can be saved outside the Catholic Church, I agree. If they are saying they can be saved outside of a denominational church, I agree. If, however, they are saying they can be saved outside the church one reads about in the Bible and outside of any association whatsoever with other Christians in an organized manner (a congregation) when such association is possible (that is such congregations exist in the area where one lives) I disagree.

Here is the problem with this whole concept men have that salvation is possible outside the church -- God adds to the church every person who is saved. All the saved are in the church and none outside it. That does not mean that every man in the church is saved for backsliding into apostasy, unfaithfulness, and such like enter into the equation. The Bible does not teach once saved always saved. That being said, if you find a saved man he is going to be found in the church and not outside it.

Scripture is what counts, not what man says, so what does scripture say? It says that "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) This is the church of which Jesus said, "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) If you are saved you cannot help but be in the church for the Lord does the adding at the time one obeys the gospel and he adds only the saved and none who are not saved.

You do not join the church, though many have the misconception they do, but if you obey the gospel in all sincerity of heart the Lord adds you to his church. This adding is to the church universal which consists of all true Christians all over the world wherever they are found and consists both of the living and of those now dead but who died as faithful Christians.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God." (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) He told Timothy he was writing "so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) thus he expected and knew Timothy to be in that house (the church). If you read the book of 1 Timothy you will readily see Paul was not just talking about the universal church. He was instructing Timothy how to conduct himself in an actual organized entity (a church, a congregation) existing on earth. In that entity (an organized church) he gives Timothy instructions on how bishops (or elders, they are one and the same) and deacons are to be appointed (their qualifications) and how widows are to be provided for so that the "the church" be not burdened unnecessarily (1 Tim. 5:16 NKJV), etc. The point is that we are talking about the necessity of a congregation and organized religion in what Paul wrote to Timothy.

If you desire to be saved by the blood of Jesus but stay out of the church you are seeking to do the impossible. In Acts 20:17 Paul called for the elders of the church of Ephesus and then encouraged them in Acts 20:28 to "shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood." (NKJV) This church had an actual earthly existence in the city of Ephesus in an organized body of saints (Christians) over which these elders were to shepherd. In the book of Ephesians, Paul says, "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25 NKJV) which is to say he died for it.

Let me ask a question. Could you have lived in the city of Ephesus as a resident back in those days and been saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" while not a member of the church there, the church over which the elders were to oversee or shepherd? In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said to them, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) Who is the "we" in that passage if not the church (the brethren) there? That is who Paul was writing to. But, we know that the brethren there were an organized body overseen by elders (Acts 20:28). Yes, certainly that text has an application beyond just Ephesus but it certainly includes the Ephesians in the church there.

In Heb. 13:7 we read, "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (NKJV--see also Heb. 13:7, 24) Who are these men who must give an account? It is the same men whom Paul gave Timothy the qualifications to meet (1 Tim. 3:2-7) in order to qualify them as bishops in the church (a bishop and an elder are the same entity in the New Testament). He said, in part, "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5 NKJV) What is the point?

It is this--Christians are to be in organized bodies (congregations) overseen by men Paul was speaking of whom the Bible calls elders, bishops, shepherds, and overseers (all the same referring to the same men and the same work). How does the man who claims to be saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from an organized body of believers (a congregation) obey the injunction given him to obey and be submissive (Heb. 13:7)? By refusing to join in with fellow disciples in such a body he separates himself from them and disobeys God.

The truth is every Christian is a living stone (see 1 Peter 2:5) in the spiritual house of God, both in the universal church and the church on the local level if he is living faithfully. The church is made of individual members called by Peter "living stones" which he says "are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV)

There was no such thing in the New Testament as a Christian living separate and apart from a local congregation when such a congregation existed. Certainly, the apostles traveled around along with other evangelists and were not tied to a specific location but when they were in a locality and a congregation was established there it is obvious they made themselves a part of it. One cannot read the New Testament and deny that. They did not try and live off by themselves, as Christian hermits, apart from the brethren and claim no fellowship or association with them. That said, an apostle was over an elder in terms of God-given authority.

Look at the epistles. To whom are they addressed? When not to an individual was it not generally the case that it was to a church in a particular locality? It is "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (2 Cor. 1:1 NKJV), "to the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), "to the saints who are in Ephesus" (Eph. 1:1 NKJV), "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1 NKJV), "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse" (Col. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians in God" (2 Thess. 1:1 NKJV).

Since one is not required, according to some, to be a member of a local congregation, an organized church as it is often put, what does one do with the epistles written to these churches? Do the messages contained therein not apply to us since we can be saved, it is said, by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from the church? Can we just toss these epistles away?

To whom did Jesus have John write in Revelation chapters two and three? Was it not to the angels of the seven churches of Asia? The messages were meant for seven churches. We can learn from them even today but, at the time, they were specific to seven congregations or churches. Read those two chapters. You will see some churches were in pretty bad shape but Jesus was still interested in them. However, we are told today the church doesn't matter. It mattered to Jesus so why does it not to the persons who believe all that matters is a "personal relationship with Jesus?"

The church consists of brethren united in faith, worship, labor, and love. One of the great messages of the New Testament is love for the brethren. How do you love the brethren when you want no part of them for they are found in the church and you want no part of the church? How do you encourage them? How do you worship with them? How do you help them when you won't even associate with them long enough to know who they are or what their needs are?

It is a sin to try and be saved by a personal relationship with Jesus separate and apart from the church (from the brethren). "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, but exhorting one another, … for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:24-27 NKJV) One who thinks he has a personal relationship with Jesus while ignoring his brethren and thus being disobedient to God's commands is self-deceived.

It is mission impossible to be saved outside the church. Sardis was an example of a church where few inside it were going to be saved (Rev. 3:4), that is unless they repented, but nonetheless, all in Sardis who were going to be saved were in the church there. Jesus "is the savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18, 24). One is either in that which Jesus is going to save or he is not in it. It is that simple, even black and white.

I make one point of clarification as I am drawing to a close. Sometimes it is not possible, at least for a time, to have membership in a local congregation. Why? It may not exist, the Ethiopian eunuch’s situation being an example. Or, the local church may be in apostasy so that to join it would be to promote error of the most serious nature. In such cases the individual makes up the local congregation and the job is to evangelize and establish a body of believers in the area. Every Christian is a part of the universal church and he/she needs to be a part of a local congregation as well if at all possible.

I advocate for a return to New Testament Christianity and that can only be done through restoration. The New Testament is our pattern, our blueprint, for what it takes to make one a Christian and what it takes to remain faithful. The same is true of the New Testament as a pattern and blueprint for the church.

I know many do not believe in the concept of restoration. I would simply say to those people that to be consistent they ought to never again use a blueprint or pattern for anything. Why? Because they have just confessed that to them a pattern or blueprint is worthless.

There is nothing illogical in the concept of restoration. The problem is not in the concept. The problem is that New Testament Christianity is a radical religion that places stringent demands upon humanity and few want to be bound by its cords. Men would rather do it their way than God's way. If we lived in Noah's time and place we would tell God we will build the ship as long as we do not have to use your pattern and can build it the way we want to.

The concept of restoration is right. It is the right idea. There is a pattern God has given and we ought to try and live by it both as individuals and as organized congregations.

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