Philip, The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church.  He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need.  The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40.  Of Stephen it is said he “did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8 NKJV)  Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13.  The people of Samaria “heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Acts 8:6 NKJV)  Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip “was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.” (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power?  How was it granted to them and why?  Was it by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18).  Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6, read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology.  However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us.  Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3).  It was on occasion an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  I have always wondered how Philip’s daughters who prophesied came to have that gift.  Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17)  He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this.  See also Acts 2:18.  Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer.  It reads, “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them.” (Acts 8:16 NKJV)  That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands.  I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts - Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32,  and Agabus in Acts 21:10?  Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27?  Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6) but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands?  That is the question.

The Corinthians were to “desire spiritual gifts”(1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and “earnestly desire the best gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26).  But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them.  How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted?  Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to “pray that he may interpret.” (NKJV)  This was a gift if it was to come that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems.  The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle.  Again, so it seems to me. 

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39).  Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him.  Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts?  How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven?  Did the eunuch have Philip’s sermon memorized so he could teach others?  He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized without a spiritual gift but one does wonder.

One can go back even earlier in time.  When Jesus was a babe the Bible speaks of a man named Simeon who saw Jesus as a baby in the temple.  He had been promised he would not die before seeing “the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26 NKJV)  The Bible says “the Holy Spirit was upon him.” (Luke 2:25 NKJV)  This gift did not come by the laying on of hands.  In the same chapter in Luke, we read of Anna “a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” (Luke 2:36-38 NKJV)  Her gift did not come from the laying on of hands.  There were no apostles yet.

The point I am getting at is I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles at his discretion during the infancy age of the church.  I am certainly not denying the apostle’s ability to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.  The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed.  Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age and for all time which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error?  What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles?  The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus’ signs to create belief.  “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:30-31 NKJV)  So, the signs Jesus’ performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm the word that was preached was indeed the truth and from God.  “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today for they are no longer needed.  Once a truth has been confirmed how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it?  Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder.  They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip’s ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria.  The biblical text says, “And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Act 8:6 NKJV)  And then, “When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” (Act 8:12 NKJV)  We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians.  However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind for Philip not being an apostle could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them and God had not conveyed it to them directly.  It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  “Through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” (Acts 8:18 NKJV)  Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit.  Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria the brethren there would have still been saved.  However, without miraculous gifts it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them.  They were babes in Christ.  There were no New Testaments.  Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel.  One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind.  How well do we remember things?  How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone?  The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember.  “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles.  We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip’s preaching life.  Many think baptism is no part of the gospel.  Philip did not think that way.  He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God.  How do we know?  The text does not say he did.  The text does say they were baptized, “both men and women were baptized.” (Acts 8:12)  How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it?  Thus we see to preach “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials?  He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today.  You must remember Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher.  Think on that before belittling baptism.

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

 

 

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, "Peter's Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3." I would refer the reader to that article before reading this one. I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

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

Here are the two passages side by side.

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

One can easily see the parallels. However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, "be converted" (NKJV), "return" (NAS), "turn back" (CSB), "turn again" (ESV), rather than "be baptized" as in Acts 2:38. How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin? One must also remember Peter was speaking by means of the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it. The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that. Why not? If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins and you have the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, is that preacher going to tell another audience there is another way to obtain forgiveness? Is he changing his story? And, one must remember that many years later this same preacher would write, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) Peter was not willfully hiding the necessity of baptism from his audience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19 NKJV) Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity. Peter was not an anti-Christ. He did not oppose what Christ had taught them. We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed. Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

I add only this. The accounts of preaching we have in the New Testament are only a synopsis of all that was said on those preaching occasions. Otherwise, one has to conclude the sermons we read are the shortest sermons in history. We know not what all Peter taught the people that day in Acts 3. He may very well have taught them baptism, and it may be he was cut off by being taken into custody before he was able to say all he wanted to say. Whatever the case, he said enough, and you and I can be assured those 5,000 obeyed the same gospel that those obeyed who came before them. There is but one gospel.

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

 

 

 

  

The Intersection of Politics and Christianity

(This is a twelve year old article but I find it relevant for today so post it.)

I write this under the date of March 6, 2012.  By now virtually everyone who follows the news at all has heard of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student, who testified before a portion of Congress recently arguing that birth control pills should be covered by her employer's health care plan.  She argued that it is just too expensive for students to purchase the pills on their own.

As you know the President's health care plan has a contraception mandate in it requiring employers or their insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives.  This has aroused a fight between the President and the leaders of the Catholic Church whose church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives.  They argue his mandate is a matter of the violation of the church and state relationship whereby the state is trying to force upon the church a requirement that they provide a service or pay for it that is directly contrary to their church doctrine while the President and his party argue it is a matter of women's rights and health care.

Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative talk radio personality, got involved last week by calling Ms. Fluke a slut.  Here is a part of Limbaugh's monologue quoted from the March 2nd ABC News Web Site online from the blog posted there by Mary Bruce.

"'What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute,' Limbaugh said Wednesday.  'She wants to be paid to have sex.  She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.  She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.  What does that make us?  We're the pimps.'"

The President then became involved making a phone call to Ms. Fluke to offer his support to her, commending her for her testimony, and expressing his disappointment that she had been subjected to these personal attacks.

I have written all of the above so you the reader have the necessary background information before you to see where I am coming from in the remarks I am about to make.  First, I want to tell you what this article is not about.  It is not about the use of contraceptives.  It is not about whether or not the government should mandate that health care plans cover contraceptives.  It is not about the Catholic Church or any of its doctrines.  It is not about Rush Limbaugh and whether or not he should have said what he said.  What it is about is defending that which is scripturally indefensible, fornication.

What kind of a country do we live in when we have national leaders that go to bat for unmarried college women, commending them, for basically committing fornication?  Now I fully understand that some women have health issues that may require birth control pills for reasons other than birth control.  I am fine with that but do not be misled or so naïve that you think that Ms. Fluke was advocating for that reason and for that small group of college-age women that fit into that category.  She had in mind birth control pills for college coeds who needed them for birth control pure and simple.  President Obama was not so naïve that he did not know that and yet his desire was to render support.

Paul guided by the Holy Spirit said, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9 KJV)  Paul spoke of these acts as being unrighteous.  He says those who do such things "shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

He says in 1 Cor. 6:18, "Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." (KJV)  Did you get that?  The Bible calls fornication a sin.  Now who is worse—Rush Limbaugh for calling names or our national leaders whose desire it is to defend the indefensible, defend sin?  God will decide.

In an article entitled "Rush Limbaugh Apologies for Calling Sandra Fluke a 'Slut,'" dated Sat., Mar 3, 2012, by Dean Schabner and Matt Negrin on the ABC NEWS online site, President Obama is said to have called Ms. Fluke "to tell her that her parents should be proud of her for speaking out for women."  I can tell you had that been my sister in the 1960’s testifying before Congress, unmarried, a single college student, that she needed insurance coverage for her birth control pills I don't know what would have happened at home at our house but it would not have been pretty and "proud" is the last thing in the world my parents would have been and they would have been right.  Don’t confound the holding of high political office with holiness and righteousness.

It is past time to quit calling this country a Christian nation.  It has aborted millions of babies (a holocaust), every year we have more and more states legalizing gay marriages which involve the sexual act the Bible refers to as an abomination (Lev. 18:22), we are slowly but surely destroying God's definition of marriage, and now we think it is wonderful that a college student advocate for birth control for fornication and commend her for taking such a stand.

As I write this piece I am 65 just having had a birthday about 3 weeks ago.  I think back on the days of my childhood and youth and how the morals of this country have changed.  The big push toward massive national immorality came in my college years in the late 60's with the hippie generation, the sexual revolution, Woodstock, drugs, etc.  I came from a very tiny rural community and graduated from high school in a class of 10 students.  A big class for our community was 16 which is what the class ahead of me had.  But, the point I want to make is I never knew of but one kid who came from a divorced family.  Nearly every child lived with their biological family.  I graduated from high school in 1965.

Children today do not have parents.  They have live-ins, here today, gone tomorrow.  It is mom's boyfriend, not dad.  It is dad's girlfriend, not mom.  What a life we live today but I thought everything was supposed to get better with time.  I thought it was called progress and was inevitable.  Man was to be his own master.  Maybe we just need a few more laws passed by our legislatures or a few more mandates to make us what we ought to be.  Maybe a little more ignoring of God would help (hope you recognize satire).

This article was not written with the intent to condemn or attack Ms. Fluke.  The truth is "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 KJV)  Furthermore, if people would study up on the Greek word translated fornication (the Greek being the word porneia) they would quickly learn why most modern translations have dropped the word fornication and replaced it with the more general term "sexual immorality."  Some want to argue that "sexual immorality" is too broad a term and covers too much ground for the Greek.  That is wishful thinking and reflects a lack of in-depth study.  The best study I have ever come across on the subject is a 20-page article by Oscar Miles in Faith and Facts Quarterly, April 2008, Vol 36, Number 2, pages 36-56.  It is a scholarly work with in-depth research with 39 footnotes reflecting that research.

The purpose of what I just said was to make the point that there are a lot more people guilty of fornication (Greek "porneia") than ever thought they were.  One does not have to be involved in the act of procreation to commit the sin of fornication for all sexual immorality is covered by the Greek word as accurately reflected by the more modern day Bible translations.  People commit fornication, sexual immorality, who have no need of birth control pills. 

So the article is not about Ms. Fluke specifically or even about a particular sin or group of sins but it is about a so-called Christian nation that has lost its way and no longer has any use for the Bible; a nation whose desire is to become a secular state and discard religion.  It is about government and government officials who would not know what a sin was if it slapped them in the face and who promote sin and applaud it.  We get what we want, what we desire.  We also get to reap the consequences; we get to reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7).

People on the one hand do not want to obey God and want to ridicule his outdated commandments, as they see them, but on the other hand, when tragedy strikes they want to think it could not possibly be God punishing this great righteous nation.  It is foolish for a man to say any one event is an act of God in punishment of a nation for no man can know that.  However, is it not also foolishness to think God is just going to continue endlessly to put up with our sins?

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17 NKJV)  We have forgotten God in our morality and our government.  We govern ourselves by the men and women we vote into office.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for what happens to us as a nation.  I hope I am not here when God decides the day has come for our punishment.  We are surely not a righteous nation. 

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

Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins?  The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual's part.  It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation.   It is hard to understand but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.”  And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT)  The King James Version and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”

One has to remember faith has to be defined.  When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith?  If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active.  To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question.  In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached.  Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith?  Certainly!  They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).  Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their doctrine demands it.  They would deny that but only in part.  They would say you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism.  One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral command.  Or, should we say the Holy Spirit’s oral command?  Yes, we should.

But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not be.    

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith.  We know they had come to faith for the text says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)  We know Peter’s response.  Why command people to repent who have already repented?  Peter commanded them to repent thus they had not done so even though they had faith.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin.  These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do.  The text says they were cut to the heart.  Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) but it is not repentance.  To repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.  It is a state of mind and will.  It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously.  One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith.  The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism.  Some of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that faith is a synecdoche.  Yes, I believe that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance but baptism also.  That they will not accept.  However, in Acts 2 faith is clearly not a synecdoche.  The question they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved.  The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.  

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins.  There is no truth in it but for the sake of argument let us pursue the thought.  If that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins.  You can be forgiven without repentance.  If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins.  Saved without repentance.  Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask the faith-only people.  Had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized?  Their doctrine demands that if they are consistent.  And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused baptism?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed.  But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  You cannot go to heaven without baptism. 

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.  “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved?  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) 

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