IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT?
Gary W. Summers
On a few occasions the church of Christ has been called a cult by some. The purpose of this article is to explain why this statement is inaccurate. One disclaimer, however, is necessary, and that is that in the late ’70s there was a group that split off from us that did become a cult. Chuck Lucas began what he designated the Crossroads Church; later Kip McKean became the head of the movement, and it was referred to as the Boston Movement. Currently it is known as the Church of Christ International. This group has been separate from us for more than two decades, although some individuals may not have this knowledge and erroneously believe that any church of Christ is a cult. The fact is that they divided churches and, once churches discovered their cultic practices, were opposed by brethren everywhere. They went out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19).
Characteristics of a Cult
The best way to determine whether or not something is a cult is to set forth definitions and see how many of them may apply to any religious group. The following definitions are provided by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in their book Handbook of Today’s Religions. All of the information cannot be repeated, but the main distinguishing marks are listed below.
1. “A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian Church” (17).
2. “…cults justify their existence by claiming they have something more than just the Bible and its ‘inadequate message’” (20).
3. “Some cults make no claim to new truth or extra-biblical revelation, but believe that they alone have the key to interpreting the mysteries in the Bible” (20).
4. “…a sure mark of a cult is that the final authority on spiritual matters rests on something other than the plain teaching of the Holy Scripture” (21).
5. “One characteristic that is found in all cults is false teaching about the person of Jesus Christ in the light of historical biblical Christianity” (21). “All cults ultimately deny the fact that Jesus Christ is God the Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity, and mankind’s only hope” (24).
6. “Characteristic of many cultic groups is a frontal attack on orthodox Christianity. They argue that the church has departed from the true faith” (22).
7. “A feature of some cultic groups is that they say one thing publicly but internally believe something totally different” (22).
8. “Another characteristic of all non-Christian cults is either an inadequate view or outright denial of the Holy Trinity” (23).
9. “Cult doctrines are continually in a state of flux and have no sure foundation on which to anchor their hope. Adherents of a particular cult will learn a doctrine only to find that doctrine later changed or contradicted by further revelation” (23).
10. “Cults are characterized by central figures who consider themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. …he can dictate the theology and behavior of the cult” (24).
11. “Another feature of the cults is they often promulgate false prophecy. Cult leaders, who believe they have been divinely called by God, have made bold predictions of future events, supposedly revealed by the inspiration of God. …these predictions of future events do not come to pass” (24-25).
12. “One teaching that is totally absent from all the cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and ‘do this’ or ‘follow that.’ All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else, but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone will save anyone” (24).
Before commenting on these, let us add the definitions of others. Walter Martin has both studied and written about cults. He said:
A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone’s interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ (Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults p. 12) (McDowell and Stewart 17).
Similar to these are: “What Are Some Characteristics of a Cult?” from Carol Giambalvo’s Cult Information and Recovery website (carol2180@aol.com). She lists most of the preceding characteristics and a few additional ones (all emphasis is mine):
1. Authoritarian in their power structure
2. Totalitarian in their control
3. Deceptive in recruiting and/or fundraising
4. Exclusive and innovative in appearance
5. Dependent on others in the group
6. Led by a charismatic, self-appointed leader
7. Maintained by a fear of leaving the group
8. Skilled in thought reform techniques
9. Isolated physically or psychologically from society
10. Zealous in controlling the flow of information; many use mind-altering techniques (such as chanting, meditation, hypnosis, and other forms of repetitive actions) “to stop normal critical thinking.”
Now anyone who is familiar at all with the churches of Christ would know immediately that, out of all the characteristics given above, only one could possibly be applied to us. We simply do not fit the pattern on practically any level of consideration. For someone to even accuse us of being a cult is to show a tremendous lack of knowledge on their part of 1) what a cult is, and 2) what members of the body of Christ actually teach. No one who had knowledge of either could so charge us.
Our Defense
First, the churches of Christ have had no strong central leader apart from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some have tried to credit Thomas or Alexander Campbell with beginning the church of Christ, but such is folly. Others were teaching some of the doctrines they taught prior to them, as well as about the same time that they reached their conclusions. Furthermore, Alexander Campbell would have made a poor cult leader, since he not only did not act in secrecy, but set forth his views publicly for years. He edited first The Christian Baptist (1823-30) and then The Millennial Harbinger (1830-1866, the time of his death). These are thick volumes; he taught nothing in secret. Furthermore, he engaged in five public debates, including one with atheist Robert Owen. What cult figure was ever so public? Furthermore, he had no revelation of his own but called people to abide by what the Scriptures teach. He invited people to read and study for themselves—a poor way to control information. He championed critical thinking, as brethren always have.
When we preach and teach, we often ask people not to take our word for anything but instead to study the Scriptures to see if what we are saying is so (Acts 17:11). We are one of the few religious groups who invite critical thinking. Many religious groups defend themselves by saying, “That’s our tradition,” or “That’s just the way we do things.” The important thing to remember is not what we or Campbell teach—but that the Scriptures themselves teach critical thinking. How often did Jesus reason with His enemies? As one studies His life, He is constantly encouraging others to think upon the evidence and draw the proper conclusions.
We do not teach that we have any authority of our own, nor is there anyone among us who claims to be authoritative or is dictatorial. All we do is attempt to discern what the Bible actually teaches. We have no one with latter-day revelations who wastes his time making foolish predictions. As we consider this point, however, where does this description leave Pentecostals, who claim that God speaks to them constantly? We, not they, are abiding by the teachings of the revelation from God found in the New Testament; they are the ones saying, “God told me this” and “God told me that”—and we are considered a cult? The pope claims Divine interpretive power. He is a charismatic leader; has anyone called the Catholic Church a cult?
Churches of Christ have no leader besides Christ (Matt. 28:18). We not only do not have an earthly head over us; we don’t even have a denominational structure. The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians all have annual conferences to decide what they will believe for the next year; they even take votes on it. We never need one because God has already declared in His Word what Christians are going to believe next year, as well as every year after that. Has anyone accused these various denominations of being cultic because they have a human authority (themselves) in addition to the Bible?
So we are neither authoritarian in our power structure (since we do not have one), nor totalitarian in trying to control our members. Our only “control” is to appeal to fellow Christians on the basis of what the Bible teaches.
We are not deceptive in recruiting; we teach the Bible to those who are interested. We do not engage in fund-raising of any kind. We do not use thought-control techniques or isolate members to get them to conform. We do practice withdrawing of fellowship, as the New Testament teaches (1 Cor. 5:1-13), but no one, apparently, is intimidated by this practice, since people depart all the time. We use no physical pressure on people whatsoever, since we do not have a commune, and the only psychological pressure comes from what the Scriptures themselves apply to a person.
Historic Teachings
The churches of Christ have not changed with respect to the historical teachings on moral issues, but look at what various religious groups have done. Anyone who wants to take the trouble to trace what has been taught about homosexuality through the centuries would discover that virtually all religious denominations have been opposed to such a perversion. We still are! How many denominations have reversed themselves regarding this doctrine—yet we are called a cult? We are the ones still upholding what the Bible teaches as it applies to moral issues.
The same is true of worship. Historically, just about every religious denomination opposed the use of instrumental music when it was added to worship—leaders such as John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Charles Spurgeon, Albert Barnes, and others. Now some have turned the concept of worship given unto God into entertainment for themselves. We are not the ones who have changed the historic teachings of the Christian Church.
The Deity of Christ
Christians cannot hold to any other doctrine but that Jesus is the Son of God. If there is any doctrine that has been upheld by us, this is it. Some of the greatest lessons ever presented by preachers in the church of our Lord have been on this topic. By this one definition of a cult alone we must be excluded. We truly believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and have defended these truths for centuries.
Of course, we do not hold to any of these doctrines because others do; the only reason Christians believe any doctrine is that the New Testament teaches it. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church did change many teachings. History records them. The appeal of the churches of Christ has always been to return to the doctrine and practices of the New Testament. Something, such as infant baptism, may have been practiced incorrectly for centuries. Longevity does not validate it.
Our One “Aberration”
The only accusation that could possibly be leveled against us is that we teach something in addition to grace and faith—obedience. Cults may demand so many works be done, or one’s salvation is in jeopardy; we have no such practice. The Scriptures do teach, however, that there is a correct response to God’s grace. Nowhere does the Bible teach salvation by “faith only.” We are saved by faith—one that obeys the Lord. Do McDowell and Stewart wish to argue that one can be saved without any obedience whatsoever?
They obviously showed their bias in what they wrote on this cultic characteristic. Churches of Christ teach the grace of God and the necessity of faith. It would be foolish for anyone to think he could earn salvation. No one possesses that much goodness; no one has the ability to counteract his own sins by laboring diligently in the kingdom or doing so many acts of kindness. Only the blood of Christ, shed by the sinless Jesus, the Son of God, can remove sins. Works cannot do it.
A person’s “faith,” however, if it will not lead him to repent and have those sins washed away (Rev. 1:5), is not genuine faith. If Hebrews 11 teaches anything, it is that faith acts. Jesus promises salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Does that sound like “faith only”? Again, Jesus said: “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). Does that sound like “faith only”? “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Does this Bible verse make it sound like we are saved by “faith only”?
So, are we saved by faith or works? We are saved by faith that obeys God. We are not trusting in ourselves to save us—only Jesus can do that. But He saves us when we repent and are baptized (Acts 2:38). Being baptized does not merit salvation, but it is an expression of compliance with God’s commands—the answer of a good conscience toward Him (1 Peter 3:21). Even after we are baptized, we will not be 100% obedient to God in all things and will still not merit salvation (1 John 1:8, 10). This fact, however, does not mean that we must not walk in the light anyway (1 John 1:7). Imperfection does not disprove the need for obedience. God still requires that we obey Him in all things to the best of our ability.
This is not some new doctrine. It was taught in the New Testament, and early Christians practiced baptism for the remission of sins. People departed from that truth, along with others, at a later time. The question is, “Do we want to stand with the doctrines of men that developed over time—or stand with what the Holy Spirit revealed in the New Testament?” May the members of the body of Christ stand with truth—despite what all others do! We have debated this issue with denominations for 200 years—with great success—and will continue to do so.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT? (02/26/06)."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)
SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)
GARY W. SUMMERS
Recently, we were made aware of a Website (www.biblebelievers.com) which contains a document with the ambitious title, "Common Sense Questions A 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer." Its author is "Pastor" David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee.
His low opinion of the Lord's church and of our preachers and elders is made evident from the outset. If he possessed any respect whatsoever, he would not have used "Church of Christ" as an adjective, thus implying that we are a denomination and that we believe in denominationalism as he does. He also uses intentionally the epithet Campbellite, by which we have never referred to ourselves. It is a term of derision which the enemies of the cross of Christ use, thinking that, if they call us names, it will somehow diminish the Truth (which it fails to do). Martin knows that we study the Word of God--not Campbell; in fact, it is doubtful that even 10% of the members of the body of Christ know what Campbell taught concerning any particular subject.
Martin regards himself highly; he boasts of his tract:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any [note: ANY gws] of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
We have one question for him before we answer his thirteen to us: When he was ordained a "pastor" in 1986, did he meet all of the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Such would preclude his knowing how the New Testament defines pastor.
Prior to the thirteen questions, Martin seeks to prejudice the reader by calling us "a most deceptive and dangerous cult" and comparing us with "the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." He does not like the idea that we believe we are "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." Well, then, by implication he is admitting that the Solid Rock Baptist Church is not "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." So why does anyone attend there? He has admitted he belongs to a man-made religious organization--not the church established by Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching over the centuries, departing from New Testament doctrine on salvation, worship, and church structure. The Mormons have additional revelation people must know in order to be saved (to which no one had access for 1800 years). We are like neither of these groups; our philosophy is to abide by what the New Testament teaches and to present that to others. We have not changed the faith (Jude 3), nor do we have additional revelations (whether in the form of one man speaking ex cathedra or of several men adding multiple and contradicting revelations to the Bible). Our plea is for all men to study the Word of God and follow it.
Martin's complaint about the one true church may be founded upon a really dangerous concept that no one can know the Truth. Yet Jesus said that we could--if we continue in His Word (John 8:31-32). How intelligent is it to tell someone: "I'm a member of the Solid Rock Baptist Church; we're not the true church you read about in the New Testament"? That would be truthful.
Martin's solution to anyone who has come in contact with our "dangerous" doctrines is to ask his thirteen questions--"then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13)." How can anyone trust this man? He does not know the first thing about understanding the Scriptures. Any one who thinks he makes sense should read John 16:12-13. Jesus is promising the apostles (not all Christians) that they will be guided into all truth when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (which occurred on the day of Pentecost). Everyone else receives the Truth by reading what the apostles wrote. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Word to be recorded and then have to interpret it for us, also? The apostles recorded "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); when we read what they wrote, we can understand it (Eph. 3:1-4). God is fully capable of communicating effectively with His creation.
After making several "cutesy" comments, Martin begins with his questions. Not one of them shows any original thought; the reader has probably heard them all before. They have been asked and answered hundreds of times--often in public debates. Martin, however, thinks he has provided insurmountable problems for "Campbellites." He is as wrong as he is rude.
1. "Where was the New Testament church before1800 (some questions are paraphrased due to space limitations)?" "What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?" Prior to 1800 the New Testament church existed in various locales, beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The church underwent persecution several times during its first three hundred years. After that, it developed into the apostate church which is now called Roman Catholicism. Martin may have heard that this body persecuted and put to death those who disagreed with her. Thus, records are rare and spotty. We do have evidence of brethren meeting in various locations in the 1600s. We have never claimed to come into existence in the 1800s. Truth was always in the Word of God--several manuscripts of which have survived, which shows that most people probably had access to the Truth.
2. "If a 'Church of Christ' elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will?" Mr. Martin demonstrates that he is clueless on this point. Where did he get the idea that we teach that only elders can baptize someone? Unfortunately, he failed to document anything he writes. [Does not the Pensacola Bible Institute (from which he graduated in 1984) teach its students to document their claims?] The fact is that elders, preachers, deacons, and members have all baptized those who are ready. If a Christian is not handy, then a total stranger (even an atheist) will do. The one doing the baptizing is not important; rather it is the one who knows he needs to be baptized.
This question has a second part:
Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation--the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
No. All this diatribe consists of is emotion, mixed with smoke and poor logic. Has Martin not read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)? What? Is a mediator needed? Was Peter a mediator on the day of Pentecost? Was Philip a mediator when he baptized the eunuch? Was Ananias a mediator when he told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? This charge is fatuous. Jesus is the only Mediator because only He can save; only His blood can wash away sins (Rev. 1:5). But God chose to put the Gospel into earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). We do not save; we bring people to Christ so that He can save them. This question is so absurd that it really deserves no response.
3. "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up?" Haha. Martin should turn his attempt at humor back on himself. If the spokes on the eunuch's chariot had broken apart, would he have had to wait for a wheel repairman before obtaining salvation? If Naaman had been wounded in the leg by a bandit, would his leprosy not have been removed just because he could not get to the Jordan River? Any time God attaches a condition to something, then that condition must be met. Fortunately, there are other bodies of water besides the one in the church building.
4. "If my sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to 'lose my salvation' and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!" If people are saved at the moment they recite the sinner's prayer (or whatever Martin has them do), wouldn't the best chance of their going to heaven be to be struck by lightning at that moment?!!
5. "If as a Christian I can fall and 'lose my salvation,' is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him an 'Indian giver'? How could I know for sure that I was saved or lost?" Obviously, Martin has been studying John Calvin far more than he has been perusing the Sacred Volume. Apparently, he thinks salvation cannot be lost, yet practically every book in the New Testament teaches precisely that. He might be careful about calling God an Indian giver, for it is He who writes a person's name in the book of life--and blots it out.
Some things that God does are conditional. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:30 God tells Eli:
"Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.'"
Does David Martin want to accuse the Almighty of being an "Indian giver"? The man ought to be ashamed that, in his irrational and emotional determination to discredit the church of Christ, he is willing to accuse Deity. Those who obey the Gospel have salvation, but if, like Eli's house, they dishonor God, God can take that salvation away from them.
Moses understood this principle. As he prayed for the nation of Israel, he said:
"Yet now, if you will, forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of the book you have written." And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book" (Ex. 32:32-33).
Likewise Jesus told the apostle John to write to the church at Sardis:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5).
There exists a Book of Life. Paul said that the names of his fellow laborers were written in it (Phil. 4:3). Some names are never written in it (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Those individuals will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life get to enter the eternal city (Rev. 21:27). So, some people's names never get into that Book, but the names of others do. But of those whose names are therein recorded, some will be blotted out. Moses knew that; Jesus knew that. One of the final verses of the New Testament proclaims this fact:
And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:19).
In other words, it is not true that once a person's name is written in the Book of Life, it must remain there; it may be blotted out (erased, expunged). "Once written, always written," is just as erroneous as "once saved, always saved." God is not an "Indian giver": we choose to become saved, and we can choose to give up our salvation, also. God pleads with us to become Christians (Matt. 11:28-30) and to remain faithful (Rev. 2:10), but the decision always rests with us.
Numerous other passages substantiate the point that those who have been saved can sin so as to be lost. Paul taught that he would be lost unless he was able to bring his body into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27). He also taught that any brother who would bind portions of the law of Moses upon Christians (circumcision, e.g.) was estranged from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). It is impossible for a person to be estranged from someone (Christ) with whom he was not familiar in the first place. One cannot fall from grace if he was never saved.
Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan; how is that possible unless they were first in the kingdom of Christ (1 Tim. 1:20)? If they had never departed from the kingdom of darkness (Col. 1:13-14), then Paul could not have sent them back. James says that if a Christian wanders from the truth, his soul will face death (James 5:19-20).
If continued faithfulness is not important to maintaining salvation, then why is the book of Hebrews replete with exhortations against falling away (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:12-4:2;10:23-39)? It is entirely possible that some will draw back to perdition (Heb. 10:39). We are encouraged by past examples of faithfulness (Heb. 11) and particularly by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12:1-3). Christians must not "refuse Him who speaks"; we shall not escape, for "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29).
John speaks of seeing a brother sin. One kind of sin does not lead to death; another type does (1 John 5:16-17). The observing brother is not asked to pray about the sin leading to death. Some who become Christians are determined to commit certain sins no matter what. They will not ever repent of them; thus, they are lost.
Can one who has lost salvation regain it? Yes, but he must humble himself, repent of the sin (quit practicing it), and pray for forgiveness. This was Peter's prescription for Simon the magician in Acts 8:20:22.
Can we know that we are saved or lost? Yes, it is not that difficult. Are we living faithfully and walking in the light (1 John 1:7), or have we returned to the darkness, from which we were delivered? We know that we are imperfect; we know that we continually fall short of what God ideally wants us to be. But surely we can determine for ourselves whether we are doing the best we can to walk with God or whether we are walking in our own stubborn way. Do we persist in some immorality? Then, we are lost. Do we care nothing for the worship and work of the church? Then our salvation stands in jeopardy. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation (chapters 2-3) serve as an excellent guide as to what Jesus thinks about salvation. We can be confident of, not uncertain about, our salvation. The Word is given to us for just that reason--to communicate to us the right attitudes and the right actions.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO 'COMMON SENSE' QUESTIONS (PART 1) (05/19/02)"
GARY W. SUMMERS
Recently, we were made aware of a Website (www.biblebelievers.com) which contains a document with the ambitious title, "Common Sense Questions A 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer." Its author is "Pastor" David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee.
His low opinion of the Lord's church and of our preachers and elders is made evident from the outset. If he possessed any respect whatsoever, he would not have used "Church of Christ" as an adjective, thus implying that we are a denomination and that we believe in denominationalism as he does. He also uses intentionally the epithet Campbellite, by which we have never referred to ourselves. It is a term of derision which the enemies of the cross of Christ use, thinking that, if they call us names, it will somehow diminish the Truth (which it fails to do). Martin knows that we study the Word of God--not Campbell; in fact, it is doubtful that even 10% of the members of the body of Christ know what Campbell taught concerning any particular subject.
Martin regards himself highly; he boasts of his tract:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any [note: ANY gws] of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
We have one question for him before we answer his thirteen to us: When he was ordained a "pastor" in 1986, did he meet all of the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Such would preclude his knowing how the New Testament defines pastor.
Prior to the thirteen questions, Martin seeks to prejudice the reader by calling us "a most deceptive and dangerous cult" and comparing us with "the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." He does not like the idea that we believe we are "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." Well, then, by implication he is admitting that the Solid Rock Baptist Church is not "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." So why does anyone attend there? He has admitted he belongs to a man-made religious organization--not the church established by Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching over the centuries, departing from New Testament doctrine on salvation, worship, and church structure. The Mormons have additional revelation people must know in order to be saved (to which no one had access for 1800 years). We are like neither of these groups; our philosophy is to abide by what the New Testament teaches and to present that to others. We have not changed the faith (Jude 3), nor do we have additional revelations (whether in the form of one man speaking ex cathedra or of several men adding multiple and contradicting revelations to the Bible). Our plea is for all men to study the Word of God and follow it.
Martin's complaint about the one true church may be founded upon a really dangerous concept that no one can know the Truth. Yet Jesus said that we could--if we continue in His Word (John 8:31-32). How intelligent is it to tell someone: "I'm a member of the Solid Rock Baptist Church; we're not the true church you read about in the New Testament"? That would be truthful.
Martin's solution to anyone who has come in contact with our "dangerous" doctrines is to ask his thirteen questions--"then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13)." How can anyone trust this man? He does not know the first thing about understanding the Scriptures. Any one who thinks he makes sense should read John 16:12-13. Jesus is promising the apostles (not all Christians) that they will be guided into all truth when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (which occurred on the day of Pentecost). Everyone else receives the Truth by reading what the apostles wrote. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Word to be recorded and then have to interpret it for us, also? The apostles recorded "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); when we read what they wrote, we can understand it (Eph. 3:1-4). God is fully capable of communicating effectively with His creation.
After making several "cutesy" comments, Martin begins with his questions. Not one of them shows any original thought; the reader has probably heard them all before. They have been asked and answered hundreds of times--often in public debates. Martin, however, thinks he has provided insurmountable problems for "Campbellites." He is as wrong as he is rude.
1. "Where was the New Testament church before1800 (some questions are paraphrased due to space limitations)?" "What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?" Prior to 1800 the New Testament church existed in various locales, beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The church underwent persecution several times during its first three hundred years. After that, it developed into the apostate church which is now called Roman Catholicism. Martin may have heard that this body persecuted and put to death those who disagreed with her. Thus, records are rare and spotty. We do have evidence of brethren meeting in various locations in the 1600s. We have never claimed to come into existence in the 1800s. Truth was always in the Word of God--several manuscripts of which have survived, which shows that most people probably had access to the Truth.
2. "If a 'Church of Christ' elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will?" Mr. Martin demonstrates that he is clueless on this point. Where did he get the idea that we teach that only elders can baptize someone? Unfortunately, he failed to document anything he writes. [Does not the Pensacola Bible Institute (from which he graduated in 1984) teach its students to document their claims?] The fact is that elders, preachers, deacons, and members have all baptized those who are ready. If a Christian is not handy, then a total stranger (even an atheist) will do. The one doing the baptizing is not important; rather it is the one who knows he needs to be baptized.
This question has a second part:
Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation--the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
No. All this diatribe consists of is emotion, mixed with smoke and poor logic. Has Martin not read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)? What? Is a mediator needed? Was Peter a mediator on the day of Pentecost? Was Philip a mediator when he baptized the eunuch? Was Ananias a mediator when he told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? This charge is fatuous. Jesus is the only Mediator because only He can save; only His blood can wash away sins (Rev. 1:5). But God chose to put the Gospel into earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). We do not save; we bring people to Christ so that He can save them. This question is so absurd that it really deserves no response.
3. "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up?" Haha. Martin should turn his attempt at humor back on himself. If the spokes on the eunuch's chariot had broken apart, would he have had to wait for a wheel repairman before obtaining salvation? If Naaman had been wounded in the leg by a bandit, would his leprosy not have been removed just because he could not get to the Jordan River? Any time God attaches a condition to something, then that condition must be met. Fortunately, there are other bodies of water besides the one in the church building.
4. "If my sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to 'lose my salvation' and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!" If people are saved at the moment they recite the sinner's prayer (or whatever Martin has them do), wouldn't the best chance of their going to heaven be to be struck by lightning at that moment?!!
5. "If as a Christian I can fall and 'lose my salvation,' is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him an 'Indian giver'? How could I know for sure that I was saved or lost?" Obviously, Martin has been studying John Calvin far more than he has been perusing the Sacred Volume. Apparently, he thinks salvation cannot be lost, yet practically every book in the New Testament teaches precisely that. He might be careful about calling God an Indian giver, for it is He who writes a person's name in the book of life--and blots it out.
Some things that God does are conditional. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:30 God tells Eli:
"Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.'"
Does David Martin want to accuse the Almighty of being an "Indian giver"? The man ought to be ashamed that, in his irrational and emotional determination to discredit the church of Christ, he is willing to accuse Deity. Those who obey the Gospel have salvation, but if, like Eli's house, they dishonor God, God can take that salvation away from them.
Moses understood this principle. As he prayed for the nation of Israel, he said:
"Yet now, if you will, forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of the book you have written." And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book" (Ex. 32:32-33).
Likewise Jesus told the apostle John to write to the church at Sardis:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5).
There exists a Book of Life. Paul said that the names of his fellow laborers were written in it (Phil. 4:3). Some names are never written in it (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Those individuals will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life get to enter the eternal city (Rev. 21:27). So, some people's names never get into that Book, but the names of others do. But of those whose names are therein recorded, some will be blotted out. Moses knew that; Jesus knew that. One of the final verses of the New Testament proclaims this fact:
And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:19).
In other words, it is not true that once a person's name is written in the Book of Life, it must remain there; it may be blotted out (erased, expunged). "Once written, always written," is just as erroneous as "once saved, always saved." God is not an "Indian giver": we choose to become saved, and we can choose to give up our salvation, also. God pleads with us to become Christians (Matt. 11:28-30) and to remain faithful (Rev. 2:10), but the decision always rests with us.
Numerous other passages substantiate the point that those who have been saved can sin so as to be lost. Paul taught that he would be lost unless he was able to bring his body into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27). He also taught that any brother who would bind portions of the law of Moses upon Christians (circumcision, e.g.) was estranged from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). It is impossible for a person to be estranged from someone (Christ) with whom he was not familiar in the first place. One cannot fall from grace if he was never saved.
Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan; how is that possible unless they were first in the kingdom of Christ (1 Tim. 1:20)? If they had never departed from the kingdom of darkness (Col. 1:13-14), then Paul could not have sent them back. James says that if a Christian wanders from the truth, his soul will face death (James 5:19-20).
If continued faithfulness is not important to maintaining salvation, then why is the book of Hebrews replete with exhortations against falling away (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:12-4:2;10:23-39)? It is entirely possible that some will draw back to perdition (Heb. 10:39). We are encouraged by past examples of faithfulness (Heb. 11) and particularly by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12:1-3). Christians must not "refuse Him who speaks"; we shall not escape, for "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29).
John speaks of seeing a brother sin. One kind of sin does not lead to death; another type does (1 John 5:16-17). The observing brother is not asked to pray about the sin leading to death. Some who become Christians are determined to commit certain sins no matter what. They will not ever repent of them; thus, they are lost.
Can one who has lost salvation regain it? Yes, but he must humble himself, repent of the sin (quit practicing it), and pray for forgiveness. This was Peter's prescription for Simon the magician in Acts 8:20:22.
Can we know that we are saved or lost? Yes, it is not that difficult. Are we living faithfully and walking in the light (1 John 1:7), or have we returned to the darkness, from which we were delivered? We know that we are imperfect; we know that we continually fall short of what God ideally wants us to be. But surely we can determine for ourselves whether we are doing the best we can to walk with God or whether we are walking in our own stubborn way. Do we persist in some immorality? Then, we are lost. Do we care nothing for the worship and work of the church? Then our salvation stands in jeopardy. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation (chapters 2-3) serve as an excellent guide as to what Jesus thinks about salvation. We can be confident of, not uncertain about, our salvation. The Word is given to us for just that reason--to communicate to us the right attitudes and the right actions.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO 'COMMON SENSE' QUESTIONS (PART 1) (05/19/02)"
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
How Do We Receive the Holy
Spirit today?
1). Listen to His revealed and confirmed
word in the gospel.
Rom.10:17; Acts 2:37
2). Let the truth of His word convict
you of truth about Jesus, truth
about your sin, and the truth of
your desperate need for mercy
and grace. - Acts 2:37; John
16:13f
3). Repent of your sins and of your
resistance of the Holy Spirit - Acts
2:38; 7:51
4). Be baptized in water (Acts
2:38; 10:47-48) in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins.
5). You will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit (salvation from sin and
condemnation) Acts 2:38,39,21;
Rom. 8:1
6) Failure to submit to His message
is "resisting the Holy Spirit".
Acts 7:51
7) Those who resist remain lost
and condemned. Heb.10:29;
Rom.3:23; 6:23
What Happens at the point of
Spirit guided baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ?
1) You are added to the church
(Acts 2:47) or baptized into One
Body - 1 Cor.12:13
2) You are showing faith and God
operates to remove the sins of the
flesh - Col.2:12
3) You have buried the old man in
baptism with Christ, are forgiven,
and rise to walk in newness of life -
Rom.6:3-5
4) You have "put on Christ" and
have been adopted as sons and
daughters. Gal.3:26,27
5) You have been spiritually translated
out of darkness and into the
kingdom of God's dear Son.
Col.1:13
6) Your sins are washed away -
Acts 22:16; 2:38 - "you are
washed" -1 Cor.6:11
7) You body becomes the temple
of the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor.6:19,20
8) You are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus - Acts 2:38; 1
Cor.6:11
9) You are sanctified by the Spirit
of our God - 1 Cor.6:11
10) You are saved from sin and
condemnation. Mk.16:16; 1
Pet.3:21
11) Your conscience is cleaned in
the blood of Christ. 1 Pet.3:21;
Heb.9:14; 10:22
12) Your old manner of life is
washed away and you are a new
creature in Christ. 2 Cor.5:17
13) Your name is written in the
Lamb's book of life - Phil.3:20; 4:3
14) You begin growing to spiritual
maturity. 2 Pet.1:5-10; 1 Pet.2:1-3
~ Terry W. Benton
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM
COMMON FATAL BELIEFS Class Series Lesson #2-a
OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM
INTRO. When men do not believe the plain statements of God (see
Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1Pet.3:21), you can be sure they will
"wrest the scriptures" and so twist them to accomodate their
theories. These scriptures, to them, must be forced to harmonize
with their idea of "faith only". They would never consent to
trying to harmonize their idea of faith with the scriptures on
baptism. Efforts are made to get around the simple force of
scriptural wording. Let us consider some of the common objections
to baptism.
A. PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE, THEREFORE BAPTISM
IS NO PART OF THE GOSPEL OR SALVATION. 1Cor.1:17
1. If baptism is no part of the gospel, then it is wrong to add
it to the gospel. Like adding circumcision, it would be a
perversion of the gospel. See Galatians. Especially 1:6-10. 2.
All the Corinthians were baptized by someone. Acts 18:8; 1
Cor.12:13 3. Paul did baptize several. 1 Cor.1:14-16. Did Paul do
something contrary to what he was sent to do? 4. Baptism is
what is done as a response to the gospel, but only the
gospel will convince one to respond this way. Matt.28:18-19;
Mk.16:15,16; Acts 8:35f. Therefore, baptism is part of the
gospel. 5. Preaching the gospel is primary. All are to hear. Only
a few will obey. Therefore, baptism is in consequence of
preaching, thus baptism is consequential, not the primary
mission. Preaching is primary. It puts one in position
to be baptized. Who does the baptizing is inconsequential. 6.
Paul is not arguing that baptism is non-essential. He had just
argued that in order to be "of" someone (whether Paul, Peter, or
Jesus), two things had to be true: 1) that person had to have
been crucified for them, and 2) they had to be baptized in that
person's name. Thus, he affirms that a person cannot claim to be
"of Christ" unless Christ was crucified for them and they were
baptized in the name of Christ. See 1 Cor.1:12,13
B. WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS? WASN'T HE SAVED WITHOUT
BEING BAPTIZED?
1. The great commision was issued after Jesus' death, burial, and
resurrection. Matt.28:18-20. Whoever died before this was not
subject to it. 2. The New Testament came in force after Jesus'
death. Heb.9:15-17 Each person must act by faith in whatever
is required of him. The same things may not be required, but
the same faith to do what is required is expected. Abraham
had to offer his son Isaac. We are not required to do
that. Noah had to build the ark. We do not. The thief may
not have been required to be baptized, but we are. Each
one is to act by faith to the extent required of him. 3.
Could the rich young ruler be saved like the thief? How do you
know you can be saved like the thief? 4. Given opportunity, would
the penitent thief have been baptized? Are people who have
opportunity allowed to use the thief's assumed lack of
opportunity as grounds for their own assurance?
C. PLACES SALVATION IN THE HANDS OF ANOTHER MAN INSTEAD OF JESUS.
1. The gospel has been put in the hands of a preacher. Rom.10:15-
17. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Rom.1:16. Do
we conclude that no one should preach lest we make man and his
work of preaching an essential part of the saving process?
Would this place salvation in the hands of another man? 2. Just
as we "implore you on Christ's behalf"(2Cor.5:20), so we
baptize in Jesus' name and on His behalf. Thus, He saves you
when you meet His required conditions of faith. 3. Hearing,
listening, learning, believing are man's responsibilities. In
this way he "saves himself"(Acts 2:40; Phil.2:12). Does he
become his own savior instead of Jesus? Is his salvation in
his own hands instead of in Jesus' hands? Do we conclude that
we must not believe lest we take some of the credit for
our salvation?
D. WHAT OF THOSE KILLED ON THE WAY TO THE BAPTISTRY?
1. The Lord knows the heart. He saw that Abraham was going to
offer Isaac, and accepted Abraham's faith. See Gen.22 2. What
of those killed while under conviction, but not yet able to
confess Jesus? 3. There is more hope for those in the process of
obeying, than for those who excuse themselves from doing what
God says. 4. What if Noah had a stroke and was unable to finish
the ark? Could he reason beforehand that building the ark
is not essential because he might have a stroke or get
killed? Would that attitude be called "faith" or "unbelief"?
Is it faith or unbelief that leads people to present such
arguments against what Jesus said about baptism? Mk.16:16;
Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal.3:37; 1Pet.3:21?
E. SUPPOSE A MAN IS IN A DESERT AND WANTS TO BE SAVED?
1. How did He learn about Jesus in the desert? Did he know he
needed to be saved from sin and that he needed to believe in
Jesus before he got to the desert? How much does he need to
know about Jesus before he can be saved? If he has time to
learn all of that, will he have time to get to some water?
2. A person may be hindered from being baptized.
Acts 8:36. What hinders you?
3. Saul was allowed three days to stew in godly
sorrow before being told to "arise and be baptized, and wash
away your sins"(Acts 22:16). I'm sure he would have
preferred to know he was saved earlier. Three days should be
enough time to get to some water.
4. Can men in prisons and
deserts be saved without baptism while Paul had to wait for
what Ananias told him? Why was this modern philosophy not
applied in Paul's case? Are people today saying that Ananias
was wrong to preach what he preached to Paul because of
desert and prison cases?
5. What if there was no one to confess
Jesus to? Do we conclude that we can tell people it is not
essential to confess Jesus because some people may
conceivably be saved in deserts alone where there was no
chance of confessing Jesus before men?
F. WHAT ABOUT GOOD PARENTS OR PREACHERS WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THIS?
1. How good were they? Do you think they were honest? Honest
enough to accept the truth had they heard it? If so, then let
God handle their judgment. Be just as honest with these truths
as you would envision them to be had they had the opportunity
you now have.
2. The question is, "how good and honest do you
think God judges you to be with His word, if you do not
believe that 'baptism does also now save us'?"
3. Good and honest parents want you to be honest
with God's word and obey it to the extent you have learned
it even if it exceeds what they had learned.
G. MARK 16:16 MAY REFER TO HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM.
1. If so, it is performed by humans. Matt.29:19.
2. Cornelius had the Holy Spirit, but was commanded
"water" so that he could be "baptized in the name of
the Lord"(Acts 10:47-48). Thus,
baptism in the name of the Lord is in water and is "for
remission of sins". Acts 2:38. Cornelius believed and was
baptized. So were the Jews on Pentecost. Therefore they were
saved. The baptism of the great commission was carried out by
Jesus' authority by human hands and was performed in "water".
See also Acts 8:36
H. BAPTISM IS A "FIGURE" (1 PET.3:21) OR SYMBOL. WE ARE LITERALLY
SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
1. The flood waters of verse 20 is the "like figure
whereunto"(pointing ahead to the non-figure) baptism (the non-
figure or antitype) now saves us.
2. Baptism is the "antitype",
the real thing typified by the flood that washed away the
sinful world of Noah's day.
3. "There is also an antitype which
now saves us, namely baptism.."(NKJV).
4. We are literally saved
by the blood of Christ when we submit by faith and by such
faith are baptized.
I. CORNELIUS HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE HE WAS BAPTIZED. ONLY
SAVED PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. Cornelius is the exception to the rule. The outpouring of the
Holy Spirit was not to save Cornelius in that action, but to
confirm to the Jews, who came with Peter, that there can be no
objection to baptizing the Gentiles in the name of the Lord.
Notice the following chart:
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Feared God... Acts 10:2.....................Yet not saved. Saw
vision ...Acts 10:3 ....................Yet not saved
Peter would tell him what to DO....Acts
10:5,6...............WORDS would tell him how to be saved - 11:14
WHILE PETER WAS SPEAKING ... 10:44 AS HE BEGAN TO SPEAK........
11:15 BEFORE HE TOLD CORNELIUS WHAT TO DO...10:5,6,48
INTERRUPTION-- HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON GENTILES Note: It was
unexpected. 10:45. The Jews were astonished. They were not
praying for it. Peter did not tell them it was coming. Words did
not tell them that the Holy Spirit would save them miraculously.
WHAT DID THIS MIRACULOUS OUTPOURING PROVE?
1. That these Gentiles were already saved? NO! 11:14,15 2. That
Gentiles must all be saved by miraculous outpourings? NO! 3. That
no one could forbid Gentiles to be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for remission of sins?? YES! THIS WAS PETER'S
CONCLUSION. Acts 10:44-48; 2:38; 1Pet.3:21 THIS IS MY CONCLUSION.
WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION???
_________________________________________________________________GREAT
COMMISSION JEWS-Acts 2 GENTILES-Acts 10 Preach
Gospel to all Gospel preached Gospel preached He that
believeth pricked in heart believed and is baptized
Repent, be bapt. Commanded baptism shall be saved
remission of sins remission of sins Mk.16:15,16
Acts 2:36-28 Acts 10:43,48
QUESTIONS
1. Can the Holy Spirit be poured out upon
anyone for a purpose other than to save them?
2. Did the Lord open the mouth of Balaam's ass
(Num.22:28) to save the ass? Was this not
a demonstration like at Cornelius' house?
3. Was Cornelius saved before or after the Holy Spirit unexpectedly
fell upon him?
4. Since Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. do not
claim miraculous outpourings of the Holy Spirit upon themselves,
why was it miraculous in Cornelius's case?
5. Does conversion take place before hearing, while hearing, or
after hearing the gospel?
6. Was this miraculous outpouring a
common occurence in all conversions, or something that Peter
could remember happening only one time before? Acts 11:15-17
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM
INTRO. When men do not believe the plain statements of God (see
Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1Pet.3:21), you can be sure they will
"wrest the scriptures" and so twist them to accomodate their
theories. These scriptures, to them, must be forced to harmonize
with their idea of "faith only". They would never consent to
trying to harmonize their idea of faith with the scriptures on
baptism. Efforts are made to get around the simple force of
scriptural wording. Let us consider some of the common objections
to baptism.
A. PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE, THEREFORE BAPTISM
IS NO PART OF THE GOSPEL OR SALVATION. 1Cor.1:17
1. If baptism is no part of the gospel, then it is wrong to add
it to the gospel. Like adding circumcision, it would be a
perversion of the gospel. See Galatians. Especially 1:6-10. 2.
All the Corinthians were baptized by someone. Acts 18:8; 1
Cor.12:13 3. Paul did baptize several. 1 Cor.1:14-16. Did Paul do
something contrary to what he was sent to do? 4. Baptism is
what is done as a response to the gospel, but only the
gospel will convince one to respond this way. Matt.28:18-19;
Mk.16:15,16; Acts 8:35f. Therefore, baptism is part of the
gospel. 5. Preaching the gospel is primary. All are to hear. Only
a few will obey. Therefore, baptism is in consequence of
preaching, thus baptism is consequential, not the primary
mission. Preaching is primary. It puts one in position
to be baptized. Who does the baptizing is inconsequential. 6.
Paul is not arguing that baptism is non-essential. He had just
argued that in order to be "of" someone (whether Paul, Peter, or
Jesus), two things had to be true: 1) that person had to have
been crucified for them, and 2) they had to be baptized in that
person's name. Thus, he affirms that a person cannot claim to be
"of Christ" unless Christ was crucified for them and they were
baptized in the name of Christ. See 1 Cor.1:12,13
B. WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS? WASN'T HE SAVED WITHOUT
BEING BAPTIZED?
1. The great commision was issued after Jesus' death, burial, and
resurrection. Matt.28:18-20. Whoever died before this was not
subject to it. 2. The New Testament came in force after Jesus'
death. Heb.9:15-17 Each person must act by faith in whatever
is required of him. The same things may not be required, but
the same faith to do what is required is expected. Abraham
had to offer his son Isaac. We are not required to do
that. Noah had to build the ark. We do not. The thief may
not have been required to be baptized, but we are. Each
one is to act by faith to the extent required of him. 3.
Could the rich young ruler be saved like the thief? How do you
know you can be saved like the thief? 4. Given opportunity, would
the penitent thief have been baptized? Are people who have
opportunity allowed to use the thief's assumed lack of
opportunity as grounds for their own assurance?
C. PLACES SALVATION IN THE HANDS OF ANOTHER MAN INSTEAD OF JESUS.
1. The gospel has been put in the hands of a preacher. Rom.10:15-
17. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Rom.1:16. Do
we conclude that no one should preach lest we make man and his
work of preaching an essential part of the saving process?
Would this place salvation in the hands of another man? 2. Just
as we "implore you on Christ's behalf"(2Cor.5:20), so we
baptize in Jesus' name and on His behalf. Thus, He saves you
when you meet His required conditions of faith. 3. Hearing,
listening, learning, believing are man's responsibilities. In
this way he "saves himself"(Acts 2:40; Phil.2:12). Does he
become his own savior instead of Jesus? Is his salvation in
his own hands instead of in Jesus' hands? Do we conclude that
we must not believe lest we take some of the credit for
our salvation?
D. WHAT OF THOSE KILLED ON THE WAY TO THE BAPTISTRY?
1. The Lord knows the heart. He saw that Abraham was going to
offer Isaac, and accepted Abraham's faith. See Gen.22 2. What
of those killed while under conviction, but not yet able to
confess Jesus? 3. There is more hope for those in the process of
obeying, than for those who excuse themselves from doing what
God says. 4. What if Noah had a stroke and was unable to finish
the ark? Could he reason beforehand that building the ark
is not essential because he might have a stroke or get
killed? Would that attitude be called "faith" or "unbelief"?
Is it faith or unbelief that leads people to present such
arguments against what Jesus said about baptism? Mk.16:16;
Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal.3:37; 1Pet.3:21?
E. SUPPOSE A MAN IS IN A DESERT AND WANTS TO BE SAVED?
1. How did He learn about Jesus in the desert? Did he know he
needed to be saved from sin and that he needed to believe in
Jesus before he got to the desert? How much does he need to
know about Jesus before he can be saved? If he has time to
learn all of that, will he have time to get to some water?
2. A person may be hindered from being baptized.
Acts 8:36. What hinders you?
3. Saul was allowed three days to stew in godly
sorrow before being told to "arise and be baptized, and wash
away your sins"(Acts 22:16). I'm sure he would have
preferred to know he was saved earlier. Three days should be
enough time to get to some water.
4. Can men in prisons and
deserts be saved without baptism while Paul had to wait for
what Ananias told him? Why was this modern philosophy not
applied in Paul's case? Are people today saying that Ananias
was wrong to preach what he preached to Paul because of
desert and prison cases?
5. What if there was no one to confess
Jesus to? Do we conclude that we can tell people it is not
essential to confess Jesus because some people may
conceivably be saved in deserts alone where there was no
chance of confessing Jesus before men?
F. WHAT ABOUT GOOD PARENTS OR PREACHERS WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THIS?
1. How good were they? Do you think they were honest? Honest
enough to accept the truth had they heard it? If so, then let
God handle their judgment. Be just as honest with these truths
as you would envision them to be had they had the opportunity
you now have.
2. The question is, "how good and honest do you
think God judges you to be with His word, if you do not
believe that 'baptism does also now save us'?"
3. Good and honest parents want you to be honest
with God's word and obey it to the extent you have learned
it even if it exceeds what they had learned.
G. MARK 16:16 MAY REFER TO HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM.
1. If so, it is performed by humans. Matt.29:19.
2. Cornelius had the Holy Spirit, but was commanded
"water" so that he could be "baptized in the name of
the Lord"(Acts 10:47-48). Thus,
baptism in the name of the Lord is in water and is "for
remission of sins". Acts 2:38. Cornelius believed and was
baptized. So were the Jews on Pentecost. Therefore they were
saved. The baptism of the great commission was carried out by
Jesus' authority by human hands and was performed in "water".
See also Acts 8:36
H. BAPTISM IS A "FIGURE" (1 PET.3:21) OR SYMBOL. WE ARE LITERALLY
SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
1. The flood waters of verse 20 is the "like figure
whereunto"(pointing ahead to the non-figure) baptism (the non-
figure or antitype) now saves us.
2. Baptism is the "antitype",
the real thing typified by the flood that washed away the
sinful world of Noah's day.
3. "There is also an antitype which
now saves us, namely baptism.."(NKJV).
4. We are literally saved
by the blood of Christ when we submit by faith and by such
faith are baptized.
I. CORNELIUS HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE HE WAS BAPTIZED. ONLY
SAVED PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. Cornelius is the exception to the rule. The outpouring of the
Holy Spirit was not to save Cornelius in that action, but to
confirm to the Jews, who came with Peter, that there can be no
objection to baptizing the Gentiles in the name of the Lord.
Notice the following chart:
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Feared God... Acts 10:2.....................Yet not saved. Saw
vision ...Acts 10:3 ....................Yet not saved
Peter would tell him what to DO....Acts
10:5,6...............WORDS would tell him how to be saved - 11:14
WHILE PETER WAS SPEAKING ... 10:44 AS HE BEGAN TO SPEAK........
11:15 BEFORE HE TOLD CORNELIUS WHAT TO DO...10:5,6,48
INTERRUPTION-- HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON GENTILES Note: It was
unexpected. 10:45. The Jews were astonished. They were not
praying for it. Peter did not tell them it was coming. Words did
not tell them that the Holy Spirit would save them miraculously.
WHAT DID THIS MIRACULOUS OUTPOURING PROVE?
1. That these Gentiles were already saved? NO! 11:14,15 2. That
Gentiles must all be saved by miraculous outpourings? NO! 3. That
no one could forbid Gentiles to be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for remission of sins?? YES! THIS WAS PETER'S
CONCLUSION. Acts 10:44-48; 2:38; 1Pet.3:21 THIS IS MY CONCLUSION.
WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION???
_________________________________________________________________GREAT
COMMISSION JEWS-Acts 2 GENTILES-Acts 10 Preach
Gospel to all Gospel preached Gospel preached He that
believeth pricked in heart believed and is baptized
Repent, be bapt. Commanded baptism shall be saved
remission of sins remission of sins Mk.16:15,16
Acts 2:36-28 Acts 10:43,48
QUESTIONS
1. Can the Holy Spirit be poured out upon
anyone for a purpose other than to save them?
2. Did the Lord open the mouth of Balaam's ass
(Num.22:28) to save the ass? Was this not
a demonstration like at Cornelius' house?
3. Was Cornelius saved before or after the Holy Spirit unexpectedly
fell upon him?
4. Since Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. do not
claim miraculous outpourings of the Holy Spirit upon themselves,
why was it miraculous in Cornelius's case?
5. Does conversion take place before hearing, while hearing, or
after hearing the gospel?
6. Was this miraculous outpouring a
common occurence in all conversions, or something that Peter
could remember happening only one time before? Acts 11:15-17
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
Class Series
Lesson #1
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
INTRO. It is amazing how poorly the subject of eternal
salvation is communicated. Even the basic essentials are not
well defined and therefore people are arguing matters, but not
communicating. Each person argues from assumptions, ideas, and
definitions that are his own, while failing to realize
that the other person has different concepts and definitions.
In the matter of "faith", there are people with vague notions
and ideas as to what it is, what is it's nature, what it
includes and excludes, and until it is sufficiently defined,
people will argue with each other and never really communicate
and understand each other. The concept of faith must be clear,
or it may be fatal. That is, if it is a mistaken faith, a vague
idea, an unclear faith, and it is weak and ashamed (Jno.12:42f),
a person may be given a false assurance that he is saved when he
is not, AND THAT WOULD BE FATAL.
I. THE WRONG CONCEPT OF SAVING FAITH CAN BE FATAL.
A. A few statements from John MacArthur (of Grace
Community Church) illustrates the dangers involved: "On a
disturbing number of fronts, the message being proclaimed today
is not the gospel according to Jesus. The gospel in vogue today
holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can
have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God.
Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer
until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises
salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity.
It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the
flesh and spurn the way of holiness".^F "Salvation is solely by
grace through faith (Eph.2:8). That truth is the biblical
watershed for all we teach. But it means nothing if we begin
with a misunderstanding of grace or a faulty definition of
faith".^F
B. False assurance is at the bottom of religious apathy
and indifference. If a person is assured
that he is already saved, and particularly
if he is assured that there is nothing he can do to lose it,
then nothing else matters.
We cannot penitrate his will to leave the social club church
and be a Christian only, or to accept what the Bible says about
baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. None of this matters to him,
since he is assured that he is already saved forever. This is
fatal.
II. WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY?
A. Certainly not the Bible. Jas.2:19ff More on this
later. But, saving faith is never alone. Faith
is itself a driving force of conviction
and obedience. "The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks
this element of active repentance. True faith is never seen as
passive--it is always obedient. In fact, Scripture often equates
faith with obedience (Jno.3:36; Rom.1:5; 16:25; 2Thess.1:8)".^F
B. The Methodist Discipline says: "Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith, only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort".^F
C. The Episcopal Church, Articles of Religion XI says
the same thing. D. Julian Pope of the Baptist Church
affirmed the following proposition: "The
Scriptures teach that Salvation comes at the point of faith
without any further acts of obedience".^F E. Glen V. Tingley of
the Christian-Missionary Alliance affirmed the following
proposition:"The Scriptures Teach that Alien Sinners Are Saved
by Faith Alone Before and Without Water Baptism".^F F. Bob
L.Ross, Baptist, says, "Salvation is promised at the point of
faith..."^F G. A paper distributed by Watchman Fellowship from
their "Cult Awareness Institute" entitled "The Gospel"(p.6)
says,"We believe that man is saved by faith alone, but never a
faith which will remain alone". So, according to this vague
statement, a person must wait and see if his faith starts to
working before he can know if he has the saving kind. Then why
not wait and see if they will be baptized before saying they are
saved?
III. SALVATION BY A VAGUE FAITH BEFORE BAPTISM IS A RELATIVELY
RECENT IDEA.
A. Luther is often credited with teaching this kind of
"faith only", but his faith only included baptism. Luther was
fighting the Catholic concepts of meritorious works. He was not
trying to teach that faith does not include repentance and
baptism. Therefore, his "faith only" concept was different than
modern concepts. Luther said, "The first thing in baptism to be
considered is the divine promise, which says: "he that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved." This promise must be set far
above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and
whatever man has added thereto; for on it all our salvation
depends. But we must so consider it as to exercise our faith
therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved
when we are baptised".^F
B. Luther taught that faith could never be simply an
idea in the head or a mere appreciation of the facts of Jesus
Christ. He said, "faith is an active, difficult, and powerful
thing". There is a sense in which we too would say we are saved
by "faith alone". It is faith alone that urges me to teach what
Jesus said about repentance and baptism (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38).
Faith is the only reason for repentance or baptism. The Law of
Moses does not teach one to be baptized. The law of
the land or whatever has been distributed morally
among the Gentiles does not teach one to be
baptized. Only my faith in Jesus teaches me to be baptized.
Therefore, the only motivating force is faith in Jesus Christ.
In this sense, though it is not the angle of James' approach in
2:19f, we can be said to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ
alone. But, if we do not define our angles and our word
meanings, we open ourselves up for misunderstanding. This
becomes fatal to those who misunderstand us. Only because of
faith does one "love the Lord", "hope" to see God, "work" to
please God, etc. But, such a statement does not
attempt to define the precise moment of salvation
by faith as happening "before and without baptism".
IV. THE HARMONY OF PAUL AND JAMES
A. Luther was frustrated with James and practically
disregarded him as inspired. Modern denominations have a
philosophy that struggles and strains at harmonizing Paul and
James but with violence to both Paul and James. B. The following
chart shows that Paul, in Romans, was speaking of an obedient
faith in Jesus in contrast to works of law or merit. Those who
reject Jesus have only one option if they would be accepted by God.
They must do everything the law demands without one violation.
This is "works whereby one can boast". Faith in Jesus is the
only other way. Through Jesus we can be forgiven of sins. It is
grace. Faith does not earn this privilege, but it is God's
perogative to offer forgiveness on whatever terms or conditions
He desires. James, on the other hand, is emphasizing the nature
or quality of the faith involved in justification.
The works that he speaks of are
not meritorious works, but works of faith. If the faith is not
obedient to Christ, it is not faith. Faith is
perfected and demonstrated by actions.
V. FAITH COMPLIES WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS GOD DEMANDS, OR IT IS
NOT FAITH OF THE SAVING KIND. Notice the chart below. (Note:
This chart was done with a different program. Send for it if
interested. TWB)
VI. WHAT DOES SAVING FAITH INVOLVE?
A. Our "faith only" friends are very vague on the issue
of faith. That is why it is so important to get
them to define the nature of the faith
they put so much faith in. In essence, you could say that most
people have faith in faith. They do not truly believe in Jesus
and take Him at His word. Else they woud not argue with the
conditions He has given. Can you imagine the children
of Israel arguing whether marching around Jericho and blowing
the trumpets was absolutely essential? True
faith does not call God's clear instructions into
question and then proceed to promise God's
grace upon people who have faith in faith.
True faith takes Jesus at His word and acts on the terms
set forth. But, we must pin down the concept and the very nature
of the faith they envision to save. What does this faith of
theirs include or exclude?
1. Conviction of sin? Must one be convicted of
sin against God before he can be saved? Most will admit
that this is included in saving faith. 2. Godly sorrow over his
sins? Must one be sorry he sinned against God before he
can be saved? Most will admit that saving
faith will include this. 3. Repentance, turning from sin? Must
one determine to turn from the
practice of sin? Or, may one decide to
keep on sinning before, during, and after
salvation? Does saving faith
include repentance? 4. Confessing Jesus? Does
saving faith include confessing Jesus? Or, may
one be saved who believes in his heart
even though he is unwilling to confess Him?(See
Jno.12:42). 5. An understanding that the blood
of Christ is needed? Can one be
saved even if he has not learned that
forgiveness comes to us on the basis of what
Jesus did on the cross? Note:
Before we bring the question of baptism into the
equation, how much of this activity is mental
"WORKS"? Is faith itself a work of the heart and
mind?
Even if one says it is God's work, he has qualified the phrase
"not of works"
so that God's works are not included in the equation. But, if
faith is God's work because He gave us the ability and the
reasons, then so is repentance and
baptism. "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body"(1Cor.12:13). The Spirit, by means of the gospel, convicts
and leads one to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins. See Acts 2. Were it not for the Spirit we
would not think of being baptized. Further, when one is buried
in baptism he has faith in the operation of God that He will cut
off the sins of the flesh (Col.2:11-13). 6. An understanding
that "here is water, what doth hinder me from
being baptized"? (Acts 8:36f). If it is
excluded, why was it included in the Eunoch's
equation? Why is it included in Acts 2:36-40? Why is
it included in Saul's conversion?(Acts 22:16) Why is
it involved in Col.2:11f as a part of "faith in the
working of God?"
B. You see that when our faith-only-friends are forced
to tell us WHAT faith entails, many of them will agree that it
entails more than a mental agreement to some facts. Many can see
how repentance comes under faith as an essential CHARACTERISTIC
or quality of the faith that saves. With just a little more
openness and honesty, they can also see how baptism is a part of
the process of faith that brings one into the enjoyment of God's
saving gift.
CONCLUSION: Why is the modern doctrine of salvation by faith
only a fatal belief? Well, let us summarize: 1) It gives people
a false sense of security, 2) It distorts God's word. 3) It
causes people to take lightly the voice of truth, because they
do not feel the need to study further or change any practice. 4)
It is vague. 5) It appeals to larger numbers because most people
do not want a great deal of religious commitment. They want an
easy way to go to heaven.
_________________________________________ QUESTIONS:
1. Does Jesus want us to believe that He does not want us to
OBEY Him, that He
merely wants us to believe He has taken care of everything?
2. If we do not believe that He has taken care of everything,
has He taken care of everything anyway?
3. Has Jesus taken care of the sin of unbelief?
4. Will unbelievers be lost? Why?
5. Does Jesus demand anything of us in order to be saved? If
so, what?
6. What is one to believe before he can be saved?
7. Is repentance absolutely essential?
8. Is faith and repentance the same word?
9. Does saving faith encompass repentance?
10. When is one saved through faith?
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
F. The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur, 1989,
p.15-16 He further
says, "A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third
of all Americans claim to be born again. Those figures surely
represent millions who are tragically deceived. Theirs is a
damning false assurance". Ibid., p.31
Ibid.,p.32,33
Methodist Discipline,
Article IX
Howard-Pope Debate, p.46
Porter-Tingley Debate, p.227
Acts 2:38 and BaptismalRemission, p.57. However, in his book on "The Restoration
Movement", pgs.70-71, he acknowledges that faith alone is an
active, obedient kind of faith. He is so vague as to why baptism
is not one of the obedient acts of faith. He admits that "faith is a package
word"(p.76) which contains such things as repentance, trust,
love, etc. Why does not baptism fit in the package? It does in
Peter's package (Acts 2:36-30), in Paul's package (Acts 19:1-6;
Rom.3-6), but not in Mr. Ross' Baptist package.
A Compend of Luther's Theology, by Hugh T. Kerr, p.166 and quoted
in "Is Baptism Essential to Salvation? Jerry Moffitt,p.52
Lesson #1
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
INTRO. It is amazing how poorly the subject of eternal
salvation is communicated. Even the basic essentials are not
well defined and therefore people are arguing matters, but not
communicating. Each person argues from assumptions, ideas, and
definitions that are his own, while failing to realize
that the other person has different concepts and definitions.
In the matter of "faith", there are people with vague notions
and ideas as to what it is, what is it's nature, what it
includes and excludes, and until it is sufficiently defined,
people will argue with each other and never really communicate
and understand each other. The concept of faith must be clear,
or it may be fatal. That is, if it is a mistaken faith, a vague
idea, an unclear faith, and it is weak and ashamed (Jno.12:42f),
a person may be given a false assurance that he is saved when he
is not, AND THAT WOULD BE FATAL.
I. THE WRONG CONCEPT OF SAVING FAITH CAN BE FATAL.
A. A few statements from John MacArthur (of Grace
Community Church) illustrates the dangers involved: "On a
disturbing number of fronts, the message being proclaimed today
is not the gospel according to Jesus. The gospel in vogue today
holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can
have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God.
Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer
until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises
salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity.
It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the
flesh and spurn the way of holiness".^F "Salvation is solely by
grace through faith (Eph.2:8). That truth is the biblical
watershed for all we teach. But it means nothing if we begin
with a misunderstanding of grace or a faulty definition of
faith".^F
B. False assurance is at the bottom of religious apathy
and indifference. If a person is assured
that he is already saved, and particularly
if he is assured that there is nothing he can do to lose it,
then nothing else matters.
We cannot penitrate his will to leave the social club church
and be a Christian only, or to accept what the Bible says about
baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. None of this matters to him,
since he is assured that he is already saved forever. This is
fatal.
II. WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY?
A. Certainly not the Bible. Jas.2:19ff More on this
later. But, saving faith is never alone. Faith
is itself a driving force of conviction
and obedience. "The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks
this element of active repentance. True faith is never seen as
passive--it is always obedient. In fact, Scripture often equates
faith with obedience (Jno.3:36; Rom.1:5; 16:25; 2Thess.1:8)".^F
B. The Methodist Discipline says: "Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith, only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort".^F
C. The Episcopal Church, Articles of Religion XI says
the same thing. D. Julian Pope of the Baptist Church
affirmed the following proposition: "The
Scriptures teach that Salvation comes at the point of faith
without any further acts of obedience".^F E. Glen V. Tingley of
the Christian-Missionary Alliance affirmed the following
proposition:"The Scriptures Teach that Alien Sinners Are Saved
by Faith Alone Before and Without Water Baptism".^F F. Bob
L.Ross, Baptist, says, "Salvation is promised at the point of
faith..."^F G. A paper distributed by Watchman Fellowship from
their "Cult Awareness Institute" entitled "The Gospel"(p.6)
says,"We believe that man is saved by faith alone, but never a
faith which will remain alone". So, according to this vague
statement, a person must wait and see if his faith starts to
working before he can know if he has the saving kind. Then why
not wait and see if they will be baptized before saying they are
saved?
III. SALVATION BY A VAGUE FAITH BEFORE BAPTISM IS A RELATIVELY
RECENT IDEA.
A. Luther is often credited with teaching this kind of
"faith only", but his faith only included baptism. Luther was
fighting the Catholic concepts of meritorious works. He was not
trying to teach that faith does not include repentance and
baptism. Therefore, his "faith only" concept was different than
modern concepts. Luther said, "The first thing in baptism to be
considered is the divine promise, which says: "he that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved." This promise must be set far
above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and
whatever man has added thereto; for on it all our salvation
depends. But we must so consider it as to exercise our faith
therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved
when we are baptised".^F
B. Luther taught that faith could never be simply an
idea in the head or a mere appreciation of the facts of Jesus
Christ. He said, "faith is an active, difficult, and powerful
thing". There is a sense in which we too would say we are saved
by "faith alone". It is faith alone that urges me to teach what
Jesus said about repentance and baptism (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38).
Faith is the only reason for repentance or baptism. The Law of
Moses does not teach one to be baptized. The law of
the land or whatever has been distributed morally
among the Gentiles does not teach one to be
baptized. Only my faith in Jesus teaches me to be baptized.
Therefore, the only motivating force is faith in Jesus Christ.
In this sense, though it is not the angle of James' approach in
2:19f, we can be said to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ
alone. But, if we do not define our angles and our word
meanings, we open ourselves up for misunderstanding. This
becomes fatal to those who misunderstand us. Only because of
faith does one "love the Lord", "hope" to see God, "work" to
please God, etc. But, such a statement does not
attempt to define the precise moment of salvation
by faith as happening "before and without baptism".
IV. THE HARMONY OF PAUL AND JAMES
A. Luther was frustrated with James and practically
disregarded him as inspired. Modern denominations have a
philosophy that struggles and strains at harmonizing Paul and
James but with violence to both Paul and James. B. The following
chart shows that Paul, in Romans, was speaking of an obedient
faith in Jesus in contrast to works of law or merit. Those who
reject Jesus have only one option if they would be accepted by God.
They must do everything the law demands without one violation.
This is "works whereby one can boast". Faith in Jesus is the
only other way. Through Jesus we can be forgiven of sins. It is
grace. Faith does not earn this privilege, but it is God's
perogative to offer forgiveness on whatever terms or conditions
He desires. James, on the other hand, is emphasizing the nature
or quality of the faith involved in justification.
The works that he speaks of are
not meritorious works, but works of faith. If the faith is not
obedient to Christ, it is not faith. Faith is
perfected and demonstrated by actions.
V. FAITH COMPLIES WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS GOD DEMANDS, OR IT IS
NOT FAITH OF THE SAVING KIND. Notice the chart below. (Note:
This chart was done with a different program. Send for it if
interested. TWB)
VI. WHAT DOES SAVING FAITH INVOLVE?
A. Our "faith only" friends are very vague on the issue
of faith. That is why it is so important to get
them to define the nature of the faith
they put so much faith in. In essence, you could say that most
people have faith in faith. They do not truly believe in Jesus
and take Him at His word. Else they woud not argue with the
conditions He has given. Can you imagine the children
of Israel arguing whether marching around Jericho and blowing
the trumpets was absolutely essential? True
faith does not call God's clear instructions into
question and then proceed to promise God's
grace upon people who have faith in faith.
True faith takes Jesus at His word and acts on the terms
set forth. But, we must pin down the concept and the very nature
of the faith they envision to save. What does this faith of
theirs include or exclude?
1. Conviction of sin? Must one be convicted of
sin against God before he can be saved? Most will admit
that this is included in saving faith. 2. Godly sorrow over his
sins? Must one be sorry he sinned against God before he
can be saved? Most will admit that saving
faith will include this. 3. Repentance, turning from sin? Must
one determine to turn from the
practice of sin? Or, may one decide to
keep on sinning before, during, and after
salvation? Does saving faith
include repentance? 4. Confessing Jesus? Does
saving faith include confessing Jesus? Or, may
one be saved who believes in his heart
even though he is unwilling to confess Him?(See
Jno.12:42). 5. An understanding that the blood
of Christ is needed? Can one be
saved even if he has not learned that
forgiveness comes to us on the basis of what
Jesus did on the cross? Note:
Before we bring the question of baptism into the
equation, how much of this activity is mental
"WORKS"? Is faith itself a work of the heart and
mind?
Even if one says it is God's work, he has qualified the phrase
"not of works"
so that God's works are not included in the equation. But, if
faith is God's work because He gave us the ability and the
reasons, then so is repentance and
baptism. "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body"(1Cor.12:13). The Spirit, by means of the gospel, convicts
and leads one to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins. See Acts 2. Were it not for the Spirit we
would not think of being baptized. Further, when one is buried
in baptism he has faith in the operation of God that He will cut
off the sins of the flesh (Col.2:11-13). 6. An understanding
that "here is water, what doth hinder me from
being baptized"? (Acts 8:36f). If it is
excluded, why was it included in the Eunoch's
equation? Why is it included in Acts 2:36-40? Why is
it included in Saul's conversion?(Acts 22:16) Why is
it involved in Col.2:11f as a part of "faith in the
working of God?"
B. You see that when our faith-only-friends are forced
to tell us WHAT faith entails, many of them will agree that it
entails more than a mental agreement to some facts. Many can see
how repentance comes under faith as an essential CHARACTERISTIC
or quality of the faith that saves. With just a little more
openness and honesty, they can also see how baptism is a part of
the process of faith that brings one into the enjoyment of God's
saving gift.
CONCLUSION: Why is the modern doctrine of salvation by faith
only a fatal belief? Well, let us summarize: 1) It gives people
a false sense of security, 2) It distorts God's word. 3) It
causes people to take lightly the voice of truth, because they
do not feel the need to study further or change any practice. 4)
It is vague. 5) It appeals to larger numbers because most people
do not want a great deal of religious commitment. They want an
easy way to go to heaven.
_________________________________________ QUESTIONS:
1. Does Jesus want us to believe that He does not want us to
OBEY Him, that He
merely wants us to believe He has taken care of everything?
2. If we do not believe that He has taken care of everything,
has He taken care of everything anyway?
3. Has Jesus taken care of the sin of unbelief?
4. Will unbelievers be lost? Why?
5. Does Jesus demand anything of us in order to be saved? If
so, what?
6. What is one to believe before he can be saved?
7. Is repentance absolutely essential?
8. Is faith and repentance the same word?
9. Does saving faith encompass repentance?
10. When is one saved through faith?
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
F. The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur, 1989,
p.15-16 He further
says, "A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third
of all Americans claim to be born again. Those figures surely
represent millions who are tragically deceived. Theirs is a
damning false assurance". Ibid., p.31
Ibid.,p.32,33
Methodist Discipline,
Article IX
Howard-Pope Debate, p.46
Porter-Tingley Debate, p.227
Acts 2:38 and BaptismalRemission, p.57. However, in his book on "The Restoration
Movement", pgs.70-71, he acknowledges that faith alone is an
active, obedient kind of faith. He is so vague as to why baptism
is not one of the obedient acts of faith. He admits that "faith is a package
word"(p.76) which contains such things as repentance, trust,
love, etc. Why does not baptism fit in the package? It does in
Peter's package (Acts 2:36-30), in Paul's package (Acts 19:1-6;
Rom.3-6), but not in Mr. Ross' Baptist package.
A Compend of Luther's Theology, by Hugh T. Kerr, p.166 and quoted
in "Is Baptism Essential to Salvation? Jerry Moffitt,p.52
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Biblical Faith #2
Biblical Faith: Part 2: Why Baptism Is Necessary For Faith in Jesus
“Sez Who?”
• Faith Means Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis". This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• Review From Part 1: Faith Is Not Always Limited To “Just Believing”
Although faith means "to trust", how one is required to trust or to have faith in any given situation changes depending on the nature of situation. In other words, faith means to trust but how one is required to manifest that trust is dependent upon each context. Since God has given us Jesus, God determines what it means for us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Paul identified that faith response which causes one to become a child of God as someone who responds to the message by being baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 From a historical perspective, Luke agreed with Paul’s theology when he recorded how that those who believed the Gospel responded by being baptized, resulting in God adding them to those who are saved. Acts 2:41, 47; 8:12 Furthermore, Matthew's account of the Gospel collaborates this doctrinal understanding as Jesus told his disciples to make more disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as well as teaching them to observe everything he had commanded. Matthew 28:19-20
But to have faith in Jesus requires more than just submitting to the act of baptism. To trust in Jesus also involves believing in Jesus in our heart and confessing him with our lips. Romans 10:8-11 It is to live our life wholly dependent upon Jesus as our Savior in that way God has prescribed.
• Blood: Covenant & Forgiveness
God has used and continues to use covenant as the basis for establishing a relationship with humanity and identifying those who are His people. In Exodus 24:3-8 Israel entered into one such covenant with God by being sprinkled with sacrificial blood. In describing this event, Hebrews 9:16-22 explains that blood was necessary not only for establishing the covenant but also for purifying the people who were entering into that covenant.
This introduces the other role of sacrificial blood, namely atonement (to cleanse someone or something so that a holy God could be present in fellowship). In the Law of Moses, God established the principle that “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul. For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.” Leviticus 17:11 See also Leviticus 4:1f; 6:24f Often this blood would be sprinkled on (or in some other way applied to) whomever or whatever was being atoned for. Leviticus 8:15-34; 16:11-19
The New Testament continues this emphasis upon blood as being necessary for the remission of sins. Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:22 Yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 stress that the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats made one holy so that one was outwardly clean. It could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper forever by removing the sense of guilt. Acccording to this letter, the continual parade of sacrifices teaches that more sacrifices were needed. Hebrews 9:9, 13; 10:1-4, 11
• Jesus’ Blood: Forgiveness & Covenant
In contrast to the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus’ blood is able to cleanse our conscience. Hebrews 9:14 With one sacrifice Jesus makes perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:10, 12-13
Because the salvation which Jesus brings depends upon the blood he shed in his death as an atoning sacrifice, Paul described that justification which comes through trusting in Christ as being “faith in His blood.” Romans 3:25; 5:9 To be a Christian involves depending upon Christ’s blood to justify ourself.
At the last supper, Jesus described this blood he would be pouring out “for the remission of sins” as being “my blood of the covenant.” Matthew 26:28 Jesus’ death achieved more than just being a sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12 It also created a new covenant relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 His blood inaugurated that new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 8:8-12
It was prophesied that those who would enter into this new covenant relationship with God would enjoy a number of blessings, including the forgiveness of sins and God’s Spirit. Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:26-27 For us to enjoy the “remission of sins” made possible by the new covenant, we have to enter into this new covenant relationship God has made possible through Jesus.
• Baptism: Entering Covenant & Receiving Forgiveness
Drawing upon the background of sprinkling sacrificial blood for purification and entering covenant, the Hebrews writer claimed that Christians can enter God’s presence because their hearts have been cleansed from a guilty conscience by being sprinkled with Jesus’ blood. Hebrews 10:19-22; 12:23-24 The author then tied together this sprinkled blood with the physical action of one’s body having been washed with water. Hebrews 10:22 Although the blood of Jesus is said to be sprinkled on one’s heart in a manner reminiscent of a priestly ceremony, the administration of New Testament baptism is a burial or a washing in water. Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 10:22 The Hebrew author’s point is that when someone has been purified by Christ’s blood by being baptized, he can now boldly enter into God’s presence with a clean conscience. Admittedly, his emphasis is not upon baptism but upon Christ’s blood enabling us to come before God.
1 Peter 1:2 also describes the elect as those who have obeyed Jesus Christ and have been sprinkled by his blood. Similarly, Peter also attributes a “good conscience toward God” as being the result of baptism, claiming that “baptism ... now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21
• Baptism: Point of Transition Into Covenant
The New Testament places baptism as being the transition point of entering covenant and the covenant community known as the body of Christ.
• Acts describes the promises of the new covenant (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit) as being realized when one is baptized. Acts 2:38; 22:16
• Paul refers to baptism as being that moment of transition when one wholeheartedly obeys a form of teaching responsible for setting one free from sin (the forgiveness of sin promised in new covenant). Romans 6:17-18 See the context of Romans 6:3-16
• Paul presents baptism as an act of faith in God’s power to raise one up with Christ, a resurrection (transition) from being dead in sin to becoming alive with Christ. Colossians 2:12-13 This transformation describes the difference from being dead outside of covenant to enjoying the blessings of being in Christ’s covenant.
• The transition involved in the new birth includes being “born of water.” John 3:5 Paul would describe this salvation which comes by grace through faith as “He saved us through the washing of rebirth.” Titus 3:5-7
• With baptism one is said to enter into the body of Christ, namely the new covenant community. Thus, Paul wrote that the Spirit baptizes one into the one body. 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul also described baptism as being “baptized into Christ” resulting in one becoming clothed with Christ. Galatians 3:27 Luke recorded that people were added to the body of believers as a result of baptism. Acts 2:41
• Final Observations
Understanding baptism, as a faith response to hearing the Gospel resulting in someone entering into the new covenant so that this person receives the blessings of the covenant and hence becomes a member of Christ’s body explains the New Testament’s references to salvation comes by trusting in Jesus and the role of baptism in this reliance upon Christ.
1) This accounts for why Jesus commanded baptism as a requirement in making disciples. Matthew 28:19-20,
2) This explains 1 Peter 1:18-22 “you were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ .... Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.” It also explains the close correlation between obeying Jesus and being sprinkled with his blood. 1 Peter 1:2
3) This agrees with what we know of the history of the New Testament church. In Acts, Luke recorded that when people heard about the Gospel about Jesus they responded by being baptized.
4) This explains why the Ethiopian eunuch upon hearing the Gospel message responded, "Look, here is water! What is preventing me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36
5) Paul’s writings reflect this understanding of faith. Paul stated his missionary goal as being to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5) and that the preaching of the Gospel results in the “obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25-26
6) This explains why the New Testament which defends the principle that salvation comes by trusting in Jesus also makes statements such as: Jesus “became the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him” Hebrews 5:9 and that God “will punish those who ... do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:8
Other articles which may be of interest might include:
New Testament Baptism
What About the Thief on the Cross?
Baptism - Why so Many Different Doctrines?
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998, 2000
“Sez Who?”
• Faith Means Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis". This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• Review From Part 1: Faith Is Not Always Limited To “Just Believing”
Although faith means "to trust", how one is required to trust or to have faith in any given situation changes depending on the nature of situation. In other words, faith means to trust but how one is required to manifest that trust is dependent upon each context. Since God has given us Jesus, God determines what it means for us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Paul identified that faith response which causes one to become a child of God as someone who responds to the message by being baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 From a historical perspective, Luke agreed with Paul’s theology when he recorded how that those who believed the Gospel responded by being baptized, resulting in God adding them to those who are saved. Acts 2:41, 47; 8:12 Furthermore, Matthew's account of the Gospel collaborates this doctrinal understanding as Jesus told his disciples to make more disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as well as teaching them to observe everything he had commanded. Matthew 28:19-20
But to have faith in Jesus requires more than just submitting to the act of baptism. To trust in Jesus also involves believing in Jesus in our heart and confessing him with our lips. Romans 10:8-11 It is to live our life wholly dependent upon Jesus as our Savior in that way God has prescribed.
• Blood: Covenant & Forgiveness
God has used and continues to use covenant as the basis for establishing a relationship with humanity and identifying those who are His people. In Exodus 24:3-8 Israel entered into one such covenant with God by being sprinkled with sacrificial blood. In describing this event, Hebrews 9:16-22 explains that blood was necessary not only for establishing the covenant but also for purifying the people who were entering into that covenant.
This introduces the other role of sacrificial blood, namely atonement (to cleanse someone or something so that a holy God could be present in fellowship). In the Law of Moses, God established the principle that “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul. For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.” Leviticus 17:11 See also Leviticus 4:1f; 6:24f Often this blood would be sprinkled on (or in some other way applied to) whomever or whatever was being atoned for. Leviticus 8:15-34; 16:11-19
The New Testament continues this emphasis upon blood as being necessary for the remission of sins. Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:22 Yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 stress that the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats made one holy so that one was outwardly clean. It could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper forever by removing the sense of guilt. Acccording to this letter, the continual parade of sacrifices teaches that more sacrifices were needed. Hebrews 9:9, 13; 10:1-4, 11
• Jesus’ Blood: Forgiveness & Covenant
In contrast to the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus’ blood is able to cleanse our conscience. Hebrews 9:14 With one sacrifice Jesus makes perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:10, 12-13
Because the salvation which Jesus brings depends upon the blood he shed in his death as an atoning sacrifice, Paul described that justification which comes through trusting in Christ as being “faith in His blood.” Romans 3:25; 5:9 To be a Christian involves depending upon Christ’s blood to justify ourself.
At the last supper, Jesus described this blood he would be pouring out “for the remission of sins” as being “my blood of the covenant.” Matthew 26:28 Jesus’ death achieved more than just being a sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12 It also created a new covenant relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 His blood inaugurated that new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 8:8-12
It was prophesied that those who would enter into this new covenant relationship with God would enjoy a number of blessings, including the forgiveness of sins and God’s Spirit. Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:26-27 For us to enjoy the “remission of sins” made possible by the new covenant, we have to enter into this new covenant relationship God has made possible through Jesus.
• Baptism: Entering Covenant & Receiving Forgiveness
Drawing upon the background of sprinkling sacrificial blood for purification and entering covenant, the Hebrews writer claimed that Christians can enter God’s presence because their hearts have been cleansed from a guilty conscience by being sprinkled with Jesus’ blood. Hebrews 10:19-22; 12:23-24 The author then tied together this sprinkled blood with the physical action of one’s body having been washed with water. Hebrews 10:22 Although the blood of Jesus is said to be sprinkled on one’s heart in a manner reminiscent of a priestly ceremony, the administration of New Testament baptism is a burial or a washing in water. Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 10:22 The Hebrew author’s point is that when someone has been purified by Christ’s blood by being baptized, he can now boldly enter into God’s presence with a clean conscience. Admittedly, his emphasis is not upon baptism but upon Christ’s blood enabling us to come before God.
1 Peter 1:2 also describes the elect as those who have obeyed Jesus Christ and have been sprinkled by his blood. Similarly, Peter also attributes a “good conscience toward God” as being the result of baptism, claiming that “baptism ... now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21
• Baptism: Point of Transition Into Covenant
The New Testament places baptism as being the transition point of entering covenant and the covenant community known as the body of Christ.
• Acts describes the promises of the new covenant (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit) as being realized when one is baptized. Acts 2:38; 22:16
• Paul refers to baptism as being that moment of transition when one wholeheartedly obeys a form of teaching responsible for setting one free from sin (the forgiveness of sin promised in new covenant). Romans 6:17-18 See the context of Romans 6:3-16
• Paul presents baptism as an act of faith in God’s power to raise one up with Christ, a resurrection (transition) from being dead in sin to becoming alive with Christ. Colossians 2:12-13 This transformation describes the difference from being dead outside of covenant to enjoying the blessings of being in Christ’s covenant.
• The transition involved in the new birth includes being “born of water.” John 3:5 Paul would describe this salvation which comes by grace through faith as “He saved us through the washing of rebirth.” Titus 3:5-7
• With baptism one is said to enter into the body of Christ, namely the new covenant community. Thus, Paul wrote that the Spirit baptizes one into the one body. 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul also described baptism as being “baptized into Christ” resulting in one becoming clothed with Christ. Galatians 3:27 Luke recorded that people were added to the body of believers as a result of baptism. Acts 2:41
• Final Observations
Understanding baptism, as a faith response to hearing the Gospel resulting in someone entering into the new covenant so that this person receives the blessings of the covenant and hence becomes a member of Christ’s body explains the New Testament’s references to salvation comes by trusting in Jesus and the role of baptism in this reliance upon Christ.
1) This accounts for why Jesus commanded baptism as a requirement in making disciples. Matthew 28:19-20,
2) This explains 1 Peter 1:18-22 “you were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ .... Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.” It also explains the close correlation between obeying Jesus and being sprinkled with his blood. 1 Peter 1:2
3) This agrees with what we know of the history of the New Testament church. In Acts, Luke recorded that when people heard about the Gospel about Jesus they responded by being baptized.
4) This explains why the Ethiopian eunuch upon hearing the Gospel message responded, "Look, here is water! What is preventing me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36
5) Paul’s writings reflect this understanding of faith. Paul stated his missionary goal as being to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5) and that the preaching of the Gospel results in the “obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25-26
6) This explains why the New Testament which defends the principle that salvation comes by trusting in Jesus also makes statements such as: Jesus “became the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him” Hebrews 5:9 and that God “will punish those who ... do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:8
Other articles which may be of interest might include:
New Testament Baptism
What About the Thief on the Cross?
Baptism - Why so Many Different Doctrines?
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998, 2000
Biblical Faith #1
Biblical Faith: Part 1: Faith Is Not “Just Believing”
Faith Can Be Manifested As:
“Believing”
“Building”
“Not Being Afraid”
“Marching Forward”
“Being Immersed”
• Faith Means To Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis." This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• How Our Faith In God Is To Be Manifested Changes, Depending On What God Has Said
To summarize God’s message to Noah, God told him that He would destroy all the living creatures of the land and air with a flood. To prepare for this, Noah was instructed to build an ark.
Noah had never seen a flood. So what did it mean for Noah to have faith? To have faith required Noah to trust in God by building an ark even though the idea might have seemed absurd. And because he constructed that ark, Noah became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. Hebrews 11:7
Jumping forward in history, God promised Abraham that he would have a son even though he and his wife were too old. So how did Abraham manifest his faith in God? In this context to have faith required believing God's promise. And because he believed, Abraham became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. Genesis 15:6
Fast forwarding through history one finds king Jehoshaphat telling the people to have faith in God. What response was required in order for those people to demonstrate their faith in God? You can not know until you have first heard the story.
A vast army was advancing against God’s people, but God told king Jehoshaphat not to be afraid of this vast army, but to march out against them. Jehoshaphat then told the people to have faith in the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 How was faith to be manifested in this context? What response was required in order for faith to be realized? You can not know until you have heard the story! To possess faith in God in this situation meant to not be afraid but to trust in God by marching out against the enemy. 2 Chronicles 20:20
As we move through history again, we come to king Ahaz. If Ahaz was going to have faith in God how was he supposed to respond? Until you have heard the story, you can not know! Ahaz was being tempted to rely upon foreign military strength to repel the enemy coming against him. Isaiah 7:3f. God’s instructions to Ahaz indicated that he was to stand firm in faith. Isaiah 7:9 In this context, to possess faith meant “don’t send for military help, wait on God.” Unfortunately, Ahaz chose to trust in military power. 2 Kings 16:5f.
• How Faith In God Is Manifested Is Determined By What God Has Said And Done
How trust or faith is to be manisfested in any given situation is determined by the context. For example, how does one demonstrate faith in someone who has made a promise? Faith is realized if one “just believes.” The context of a promise only requires "belief" in the promise in order for one to have faith. And so when God gave His promise to Abraham and Abraham responded in faith by believing that promise, Abraham demonstrated faith and it was credited to him for righteousness.
Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans 4 is not making the claim nor affirming by example that faith in Christ means to “just believe.” Rather, Paul is seeking to defend the principle that by trusting in God, without the works of the Law, one can be made righteous. Abraham is an example of one who was credited as being righteous based upon his trust in God as opposed to depending upon himself by what he had achieved through obedience to the Law of Moses.
Although a promise only requires one to just believe, when God issues a command, to respond with faith to that command requires more than just believing. When God commanded Abraham to leave his country and “go to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), faith did not mean “just believe.” It meant for him to pack his bags and head down a dusty road trusting that God would in fact lead him. When God commands, to trust in God involves “believing” and “obeying.” To respond with less than what the context demanded was to fail to demonstrate faith.
Although faith always means to trust, how that trust is to be manifested changes depending upon the context. Perhaps this can be illustrated by computer language. Faith is not a “literal string” where it always demands the same response such as “just believe." Rather, faith is like a variable whose specific demands of how one is going to trust changes depending upon each context.
• To Know How To Have Faith In Jesus Requires That One First Hear The Gospel Story
How does one trust in Jesus? You can not know until you have first heard the story! There exists several theoretical possibilities for how God might require us to trust in Jesus. If God has simply made us a promise through Jesus that He will do something for us, then to respond with faith would simply mean to "just believe the promise."
If, however, God has presented us with a Lord whom we must submit to, then faith would demand that we "submit to Jesus as Lord." Or it might be that God has commanded us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior by responding with a particular action. Then faith in Jesus would require not only believing but also obeying God's command. What it actually means to trust in Jesus will be determined by hearing the Gospel message. It does not depend upon what I think it means to have faith in God.
Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, God announced through His prophet Isaiah that His Servant would suffer and take upon himself the sins of others. The story of Jesus is how God fulfilled many prophecies like this one thus providing peace and salvation toward man.
God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.
When the religious leaders felt threatened by Jesus, they began to plot how to kill him. They succeeded in having him killed. But on the third day God raised him up to life and appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead when God will judge the world with justice.
Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe everything he had commanded them. The good news is that those who believe in Jesus receive the forgiveness of their sins.
• What Can We Learn From Paul?
To note that Paul wrote his letters to Christians and not to non-Christians may seem like a small point at first, but it influences how one interprets Paul. Paul did not write his letters to teach Christians how to trust in Jesus! Although Paul wrote a lot about faith and strongly defended the principle of trusting in Jesus, Paul knew that his readers already understood how to trust in Jesus. Paul's primary purpose for writing about the justification which comes by faith in Christ was to respond to those who claimed that obedience to the Law of Moses (works) was necessary for salvation. (Cf. Acts 15; Romans 4; Galatians 3) Paul’s purpose was to defend the principle of faith against schemes of self-dependence. Paul should not be interpreted as trying to primarily explain how one should trust in Jesus for salvation!
In fact, with the possible exception of some of the Gospels and perhaps the book of Acts, the entire New Testament was written to the community of faith, to people who had no need of being told what it meant to acknowledge Jesus by faith. This should alert us to the fact that the New Testament authors had no need to address the question we are asking. Accordingly, when the nature of faith is discussed in the New Testament, typically it either describes matters of practical living for those already within the community of faith (James 2:14-26), or it highlights one aspect of trusting in Jesus. In such cases, these verses are not seeking to teach us everything about how we are to respond in faith but rather, the author is using some aspect of faith to advance some other point.
• Romans 9:30-10:21
One example where Paul while making another point partially described what it means to trust in Jesus is found in Romans 10. In explaining the obstacle that had prevented Israel from receiving the righteousness which comes by faith (Romans 9:30-10:21), Paul used Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to teach that the righteousness which comes by faith requires “the message” (Jesus) to become a belief in one’s heart and a confession of one’s lips.
The function of this passage is to show from scripture why Israel had failed to arrive at faith. Israel had not internalized the message of Jesus. Israel had refused to believe in their hearts on Jesus nor were they willing to confess him with their lips. But since salvation is open to all who will call upon the Lord, that is, to all who will depend upon Jesus for salvation (cf. Acts 2:21; 22:16), even an Israelite would be saved if he would respond to the message of Christ with his heart and his lips. Paul’s purpose here in talking about faith is not to define for his reader everything about faith, rather he identified that barrier which had prevented Israel from being justified by faith.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing, we can discover from this text something about what is required to have faith in Jesus. Faith in Jesus includes the willingness to confess Jesus as Lord and to believe on him in one’s heart.
• Galatians 3:26-27
Another text in which Paul partially described how God wants one to trust in Jesus is Galatians 3:26-27. In the original language this text comprises one sentence which reads: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Paul defined that faith which causes one to become a child of God as involving baptism, specifically a baptism into Christ that results in one being clothed with Christ.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing Galatians which appears to be a response to those who would bind the Mosaical Law upon Christians, we can discover something about what Paul understood constituted responding to Christ by faith and thus being sons of God. To become a child of God by trusting in Jesus necessitated that one be baptized into Christ.
Paul’s writings reflect an understanding of faith and works that did not create a dichotomy between belief and actions. For Paul, "faith verses works" was the dichotomy between trusting in Jesus verses self-reliance such as could come by observing the Law. Unfortunately today, many people mistakenly assume that the contrast between “faith and works” involves “belief verses action.” To assume that faith equals “believe” and works equals “action” is unbiblical. Both faith and works can include actions. Both are based upon beliefs, albeit not the same beliefs.
Paul understood faith to be trusting in God and in Jesus. To trust in Jesus involves “the obedience of faith.” In Romans 1:5 Paul stated that his missionary goal was to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.” Similarly, at the end of this same great letter which champions faith in Jesus, Paul wrote that the preaching of Jesus Christ leads to the obedience of faith. Romans 16:25-26
• Does Luke Agree With Paul?
Just as Paul’s purpose was not to teach all of the details about conversion nor how to become a Christian, so also Luke did not write Acts to teach us how to respond to the Gospel message. But Acts does historically record how people did respond to the preaching of the Gospel. When people heard the story about Jesus' death and resurrection, many did respond with faith. For example, in Acts 4:4 one reads, "But many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand." Similarly when the message of Jesus was proclaimed at Antioch, "a great number became believers and turned to the Lord." Acts 11:21 Likewise when some Jewish priests heard the Gospel, they became "obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7
In Acts 8:12 Luke describes the response of faith in greater detail when he wrote, “But when they believed Philip while he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized.” Acts 8:35-36 agrees, “Then Philip ... proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” What Luke portrays in this text is that when Philip simply presented the message about Jesus, that Gospel message evoked the faith question, “Why can’t I be baptized?”
Does this mean that there are/ can be different responses to the Gospel message? No. Sometimes Luke used “believe” or “obedient to the faith” in a very general way to mean “they were converted.” Such phrases serve the same function and communicate the same message as Acts 14:21 which states, "They preached the good news in that city, and made many disciples..." In these verses, no details are given about HOW one entrusted his life to Jesus. At other times Luke provides details about how one's faith in Jesus was manifested as a result of hearing the Gospel message.
When people heard the preaching of the good news about Jesus, how did they trust in Jesus? Those that believe the message requested baptism. Although it was simply the Gospel which was being preached, that story of Jesus obviously included the message about how to respond to Jesus in faith which explains why the Eunuch requested baptism. In Acts, the salvation which is associated with the forgiveness of sins required baptism. Acts 2:38; 22:16
Doesn’t Acts 10:43 also teach that the forgiveness of sins would come to those who just “believe” in Jesus. First of all, the text never says "just believe." Second, it is obvious that Peter's message to Cornelius comprised the necessity of the general call to trust in Jesus because the text goes on to show that his whole family was baptized. Paul and Luke both agree that the biblical response of faith to the Gospel message involves a baptism into Christ.
The New Testament writers understood faith in Jesus to be trusting in Jesus as our sacrifice, a response that involves not only believing that Jesus was raised from the dead but also a willingness to confess him as Lord and to cast one’s hope upon Christ as one is buried in baptism. Faith in Christ is to depend on Christ and His blood. Romans 3:25; 5:9 In Hebrews 10:19-22, the Hebrew author revealed that he believed it was because of Jesus' blood that he would be purified and thus could enter into God's holy presence. What is significant for our discussion is that he tied together the contacting of Christ's blood with the physical act of having one's body washed with pure water.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998 Revised 2000
Faith Can Be Manifested As:
“Believing”
“Building”
“Not Being Afraid”
“Marching Forward”
“Being Immersed”
• Faith Means To Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis." This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• How Our Faith In God Is To Be Manifested Changes, Depending On What God Has Said
To summarize God’s message to Noah, God told him that He would destroy all the living creatures of the land and air with a flood. To prepare for this, Noah was instructed to build an ark.
Noah had never seen a flood. So what did it mean for Noah to have faith? To have faith required Noah to trust in God by building an ark even though the idea might have seemed absurd. And because he constructed that ark, Noah became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. Hebrews 11:7
Jumping forward in history, God promised Abraham that he would have a son even though he and his wife were too old. So how did Abraham manifest his faith in God? In this context to have faith required believing God's promise. And because he believed, Abraham became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. Genesis 15:6
Fast forwarding through history one finds king Jehoshaphat telling the people to have faith in God. What response was required in order for those people to demonstrate their faith in God? You can not know until you have first heard the story.
A vast army was advancing against God’s people, but God told king Jehoshaphat not to be afraid of this vast army, but to march out against them. Jehoshaphat then told the people to have faith in the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 How was faith to be manifested in this context? What response was required in order for faith to be realized? You can not know until you have heard the story! To possess faith in God in this situation meant to not be afraid but to trust in God by marching out against the enemy. 2 Chronicles 20:20
As we move through history again, we come to king Ahaz. If Ahaz was going to have faith in God how was he supposed to respond? Until you have heard the story, you can not know! Ahaz was being tempted to rely upon foreign military strength to repel the enemy coming against him. Isaiah 7:3f. God’s instructions to Ahaz indicated that he was to stand firm in faith. Isaiah 7:9 In this context, to possess faith meant “don’t send for military help, wait on God.” Unfortunately, Ahaz chose to trust in military power. 2 Kings 16:5f.
• How Faith In God Is Manifested Is Determined By What God Has Said And Done
How trust or faith is to be manisfested in any given situation is determined by the context. For example, how does one demonstrate faith in someone who has made a promise? Faith is realized if one “just believes.” The context of a promise only requires "belief" in the promise in order for one to have faith. And so when God gave His promise to Abraham and Abraham responded in faith by believing that promise, Abraham demonstrated faith and it was credited to him for righteousness.
Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans 4 is not making the claim nor affirming by example that faith in Christ means to “just believe.” Rather, Paul is seeking to defend the principle that by trusting in God, without the works of the Law, one can be made righteous. Abraham is an example of one who was credited as being righteous based upon his trust in God as opposed to depending upon himself by what he had achieved through obedience to the Law of Moses.
Although a promise only requires one to just believe, when God issues a command, to respond with faith to that command requires more than just believing. When God commanded Abraham to leave his country and “go to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), faith did not mean “just believe.” It meant for him to pack his bags and head down a dusty road trusting that God would in fact lead him. When God commands, to trust in God involves “believing” and “obeying.” To respond with less than what the context demanded was to fail to demonstrate faith.
Although faith always means to trust, how that trust is to be manifested changes depending upon the context. Perhaps this can be illustrated by computer language. Faith is not a “literal string” where it always demands the same response such as “just believe." Rather, faith is like a variable whose specific demands of how one is going to trust changes depending upon each context.
• To Know How To Have Faith In Jesus Requires That One First Hear The Gospel Story
How does one trust in Jesus? You can not know until you have first heard the story! There exists several theoretical possibilities for how God might require us to trust in Jesus. If God has simply made us a promise through Jesus that He will do something for us, then to respond with faith would simply mean to "just believe the promise."
If, however, God has presented us with a Lord whom we must submit to, then faith would demand that we "submit to Jesus as Lord." Or it might be that God has commanded us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior by responding with a particular action. Then faith in Jesus would require not only believing but also obeying God's command. What it actually means to trust in Jesus will be determined by hearing the Gospel message. It does not depend upon what I think it means to have faith in God.
Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, God announced through His prophet Isaiah that His Servant would suffer and take upon himself the sins of others. The story of Jesus is how God fulfilled many prophecies like this one thus providing peace and salvation toward man.
God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.
When the religious leaders felt threatened by Jesus, they began to plot how to kill him. They succeeded in having him killed. But on the third day God raised him up to life and appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead when God will judge the world with justice.
Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe everything he had commanded them. The good news is that those who believe in Jesus receive the forgiveness of their sins.
• What Can We Learn From Paul?
To note that Paul wrote his letters to Christians and not to non-Christians may seem like a small point at first, but it influences how one interprets Paul. Paul did not write his letters to teach Christians how to trust in Jesus! Although Paul wrote a lot about faith and strongly defended the principle of trusting in Jesus, Paul knew that his readers already understood how to trust in Jesus. Paul's primary purpose for writing about the justification which comes by faith in Christ was to respond to those who claimed that obedience to the Law of Moses (works) was necessary for salvation. (Cf. Acts 15; Romans 4; Galatians 3) Paul’s purpose was to defend the principle of faith against schemes of self-dependence. Paul should not be interpreted as trying to primarily explain how one should trust in Jesus for salvation!
In fact, with the possible exception of some of the Gospels and perhaps the book of Acts, the entire New Testament was written to the community of faith, to people who had no need of being told what it meant to acknowledge Jesus by faith. This should alert us to the fact that the New Testament authors had no need to address the question we are asking. Accordingly, when the nature of faith is discussed in the New Testament, typically it either describes matters of practical living for those already within the community of faith (James 2:14-26), or it highlights one aspect of trusting in Jesus. In such cases, these verses are not seeking to teach us everything about how we are to respond in faith but rather, the author is using some aspect of faith to advance some other point.
• Romans 9:30-10:21
One example where Paul while making another point partially described what it means to trust in Jesus is found in Romans 10. In explaining the obstacle that had prevented Israel from receiving the righteousness which comes by faith (Romans 9:30-10:21), Paul used Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to teach that the righteousness which comes by faith requires “the message” (Jesus) to become a belief in one’s heart and a confession of one’s lips.
The function of this passage is to show from scripture why Israel had failed to arrive at faith. Israel had not internalized the message of Jesus. Israel had refused to believe in their hearts on Jesus nor were they willing to confess him with their lips. But since salvation is open to all who will call upon the Lord, that is, to all who will depend upon Jesus for salvation (cf. Acts 2:21; 22:16), even an Israelite would be saved if he would respond to the message of Christ with his heart and his lips. Paul’s purpose here in talking about faith is not to define for his reader everything about faith, rather he identified that barrier which had prevented Israel from being justified by faith.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing, we can discover from this text something about what is required to have faith in Jesus. Faith in Jesus includes the willingness to confess Jesus as Lord and to believe on him in one’s heart.
• Galatians 3:26-27
Another text in which Paul partially described how God wants one to trust in Jesus is Galatians 3:26-27. In the original language this text comprises one sentence which reads: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Paul defined that faith which causes one to become a child of God as involving baptism, specifically a baptism into Christ that results in one being clothed with Christ.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing Galatians which appears to be a response to those who would bind the Mosaical Law upon Christians, we can discover something about what Paul understood constituted responding to Christ by faith and thus being sons of God. To become a child of God by trusting in Jesus necessitated that one be baptized into Christ.
Paul’s writings reflect an understanding of faith and works that did not create a dichotomy between belief and actions. For Paul, "faith verses works" was the dichotomy between trusting in Jesus verses self-reliance such as could come by observing the Law. Unfortunately today, many people mistakenly assume that the contrast between “faith and works” involves “belief verses action.” To assume that faith equals “believe” and works equals “action” is unbiblical. Both faith and works can include actions. Both are based upon beliefs, albeit not the same beliefs.
Paul understood faith to be trusting in God and in Jesus. To trust in Jesus involves “the obedience of faith.” In Romans 1:5 Paul stated that his missionary goal was to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.” Similarly, at the end of this same great letter which champions faith in Jesus, Paul wrote that the preaching of Jesus Christ leads to the obedience of faith. Romans 16:25-26
• Does Luke Agree With Paul?
Just as Paul’s purpose was not to teach all of the details about conversion nor how to become a Christian, so also Luke did not write Acts to teach us how to respond to the Gospel message. But Acts does historically record how people did respond to the preaching of the Gospel. When people heard the story about Jesus' death and resurrection, many did respond with faith. For example, in Acts 4:4 one reads, "But many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand." Similarly when the message of Jesus was proclaimed at Antioch, "a great number became believers and turned to the Lord." Acts 11:21 Likewise when some Jewish priests heard the Gospel, they became "obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7
In Acts 8:12 Luke describes the response of faith in greater detail when he wrote, “But when they believed Philip while he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized.” Acts 8:35-36 agrees, “Then Philip ... proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” What Luke portrays in this text is that when Philip simply presented the message about Jesus, that Gospel message evoked the faith question, “Why can’t I be baptized?”
Does this mean that there are/ can be different responses to the Gospel message? No. Sometimes Luke used “believe” or “obedient to the faith” in a very general way to mean “they were converted.” Such phrases serve the same function and communicate the same message as Acts 14:21 which states, "They preached the good news in that city, and made many disciples..." In these verses, no details are given about HOW one entrusted his life to Jesus. At other times Luke provides details about how one's faith in Jesus was manifested as a result of hearing the Gospel message.
When people heard the preaching of the good news about Jesus, how did they trust in Jesus? Those that believe the message requested baptism. Although it was simply the Gospel which was being preached, that story of Jesus obviously included the message about how to respond to Jesus in faith which explains why the Eunuch requested baptism. In Acts, the salvation which is associated with the forgiveness of sins required baptism. Acts 2:38; 22:16
Doesn’t Acts 10:43 also teach that the forgiveness of sins would come to those who just “believe” in Jesus. First of all, the text never says "just believe." Second, it is obvious that Peter's message to Cornelius comprised the necessity of the general call to trust in Jesus because the text goes on to show that his whole family was baptized. Paul and Luke both agree that the biblical response of faith to the Gospel message involves a baptism into Christ.
The New Testament writers understood faith in Jesus to be trusting in Jesus as our sacrifice, a response that involves not only believing that Jesus was raised from the dead but also a willingness to confess him as Lord and to cast one’s hope upon Christ as one is buried in baptism. Faith in Christ is to depend on Christ and His blood. Romans 3:25; 5:9 In Hebrews 10:19-22, the Hebrew author revealed that he believed it was because of Jesus' blood that he would be purified and thus could enter into God's holy presence. What is significant for our discussion is that he tied together the contacting of Christ's blood with the physical act of having one's body washed with pure water.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998 Revised 2000
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)