There are a lot of mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know a lot more about than we do. Apollos, the eloquent evangelist ranks right up there near the top among such New Testament characters. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. The thing that makes Apollos mysterious is what we do know about him.
Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."
The first great mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus and knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God."
It is certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.
We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there and the church leaders there knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he in close association with them would have soon learned the difference himself.
It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge to him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.
So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know for the Bible does not tell us.
Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental truth. As travelers with Paul they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher it is essential you teach the truth meaning you first have to know it. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching and speaking to was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)
Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila.. He had already been baptized with John's baptism which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted they are remitted.
Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism and so Apollos having been baptized once with John's baptism did not need to be baptized again.
When the church first began it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples they were cleansed for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.
Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."
We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? When your sins have been remitted they are remitted. Yes, remission looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross which was yet to come but they were assured of the remission of their sins having believed and obeyed what they had been taught which included baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.
Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)
Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do so you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)
It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach we know they were not of that camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector but even so if you read Luke 7:29 you will see that tax gathers were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.
In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1 that Paul found there "some disciples" referring to this group of twelve men.
Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19 is "in (the literal translation is "into"-DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38) which they should have known about.
Now here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation is "into"-DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?
Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized too but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?
The answer has to be timing. There was a time starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the time of either his imprisonment, death, or the day of Pentecost when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. This was a short period of time of maybe a year or a year and a half approximately when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized he was saved having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time.
The twelve men at Ephesus would have been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost when the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins became effective. At that time and thereafter anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity to it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. The one baptism looked forward to Christ's death while the other looked back.
In closing I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts with regards to salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1) and yet were not baptized? Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).
Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into" - DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Mat 28:18-20 NAS)
Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching in order to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple (dictionary definition) will be baptized for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before he can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning of Jesus and being willing to follow him?
And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these men and baptize them?
Here is the clincher - why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? He says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?
In Acts 19:2 Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then in verse 3 immediately following he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Gospel Obedience at Corinth - What Really Happened?
Did Paul preach the same gospel at Corinth that he taught elsewhere? Everywhere else he taught, as part of the gospel, baptism for the remission of sins. One can go to Acts 16 and read two accounts, in the same chapter, of conversions made by Paul - Lydia and the Philippian jailer - in which in both instances those being converted were baptized.
Paul himself, in his conversion, was baptized. You may recall the words of Ananias to him, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NAS) I might add that it is hard to wash away your sins if you do not have any so evidently Ananias felt pretty sure that Paul still had some that needed to be taken care of. Many modern day preachers speak as though they know more about it than what Ananias did as they say men are saved at the point of faith without baptism and thus have no sins to wash away.
There is a troubling passage in 1 Corinthians that cause some trouble on the subject of baptism - 1 Cor. 1:14. Paul preached baptism, was baptized himself, and yet here he says, in writing to the church at Corinth, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius." (NAS) What gives? That is a good question deserving a response.
We know Paul preached baptism at Corinth. How do we know? In Acts 18:8 we find the result of Paul's preaching at Corinth. The text says, "Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." (Acts 18:8 NAS) I stop here and ask a question. If Paul was not preaching baptism at Corinth who was? Someone was as people were being baptized. But we read 1 Cor. 1:14 and doubt enters our mind.
There is no need for doubt as will be shown. If Paul preached one gospel in one location that had baptism in it and another gospel in another location that did not then why should any of us listen to anything he had to say? He says, "even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NAS) If Paul preached more than one gospel he condemned himself by his very own words. That did not happen.
In the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS) We need for the purpose of our study to emphasize the words "baptized into Christ".
What does the word "for" mean? Has Paul not tied faith in Christ directly with baptism? If you have faith in Christ you are baptized. If you do not have faith in Christ you are not baptized. It is that simple.
True faith in Christ demands baptism for the reason that Jesus taught it. You cannot have faith in Christ and yet lack faith in what he taught and commanded. (See Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:16 on what Jesus taught on the subject of baptism.)
Let me ask some questions based on this passage - Galatians 3:27. Paul says, again, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." What about those who were not baptized? Did they cloth themselves with Christ? Did Paul say for all of you who were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ? Is that what he said?
How does one get into Christ, the only place salvation can be found? Does not the text tell us clearly if we will only listen?
If Paul preached baptism once he preached it everywhere he went whether the text says he did nor not. There is absolutely no choice but to infer that he taught baptism to both Lydia and the Philipian jailer or else how did they know about it and why did they do it?
All of that said we need not make necessary inferences about baptism at Corinth for Paul in writing to the church at Corinth says in 1 Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Baptized into what body? The body of Christ as per Gal. 3:27.
Objection may be made and it be said that the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23) so baptism is really just about getting into the church. Baptism is about getting into the spiritual body of Christ and, yes, that is the church but that is also the very thing Christ is the Savior of. "He himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NAS) He has not said a word about saving anything else save his body.
One needs to get himself into Christ where salvation is and the road to doing that is certainly faith but not faith alone apart from repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism for the remission of sins which places one in Christ.
The reader should not confuse being in the church mentioned in the Bible with denominations. The thing Paul is discussing is not denominationalism which did not exist when Paul wrote and would not for hundreds of years to come. One is baptized into the New Testament church, the one Christ established and gave his life for and which will be saved on the last day. Everyone in the church will be saved provided they live faithful lives.
Now to the passage at hand which troubles some, 1 Cor. 1:14-17 (NAS), Paul speaking, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."
There are two points about this passage that we have to keep in mind lest we be led astray. (1) The problem at Corinth that Paul is discussing in the first chapter of First Corinthians is that of men making themselves disciples of various evangelists rather than of Christ alone creating division. In verse 13 Paul says, "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (answer is no - DS)" (NAS) "In the name of Paul" should read instead "into the name of Paul" (see the side margin notes in the NASB reference edition which lists the word "into" as the literal translation).
Baptism is "into Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and not into man. Only in Christ is salvation found. No one at Corinth was baptized into any man's name other than Christ. Paul was thus thankful he had not personally baptized but a very few at Corinth "that no man should say you were baptized in ("into" is the literal translation - DS) my name."
He says that in light of what was going on there. Had he baptized more then the more likely there would be more claiming to be of Paul and Paul wanted no part of this division in the church that was occurring. His point is that men are baptized into Christ, not into a man, and thus should wear the name of Christian only. There is no such thing as being of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas and it is wrong to claim allegiance to such and divide the church.
(2) The second thing we must understand is that just because Paul did not do the baptizing does not mean that his helpers such as Timothy and others did not do so on his behalf in rendering aid to him in his work. We have another account of this very thing with Jesus. John says, "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were) he left Judea." (John 4:1-2 NAS)
We need to use our common sense. Paul is not going to preach baptism and then not see that it is done when people respond to his preaching. None of us think that Peter personally baptized the 3,000 who responded to his preaching on the day of Pentecost when he preached baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). We are sure he had help. If we were to find Paul had men traveling with him who did this work why should we be shocked? 1 Cor. 12:13 certainly proves someone was doing the baptizing there.
I think we have pretty much covered the ground that needs to be covered concerning what happened in Corinth with regards to Paul's preaching and practice. The same thing happened at Corinth that happened everywhere else he preached, same gospel, same baptism for those who believed.
Paul himself, in his conversion, was baptized. You may recall the words of Ananias to him, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NAS) I might add that it is hard to wash away your sins if you do not have any so evidently Ananias felt pretty sure that Paul still had some that needed to be taken care of. Many modern day preachers speak as though they know more about it than what Ananias did as they say men are saved at the point of faith without baptism and thus have no sins to wash away.
There is a troubling passage in 1 Corinthians that cause some trouble on the subject of baptism - 1 Cor. 1:14. Paul preached baptism, was baptized himself, and yet here he says, in writing to the church at Corinth, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius." (NAS) What gives? That is a good question deserving a response.
We know Paul preached baptism at Corinth. How do we know? In Acts 18:8 we find the result of Paul's preaching at Corinth. The text says, "Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." (Acts 18:8 NAS) I stop here and ask a question. If Paul was not preaching baptism at Corinth who was? Someone was as people were being baptized. But we read 1 Cor. 1:14 and doubt enters our mind.
There is no need for doubt as will be shown. If Paul preached one gospel in one location that had baptism in it and another gospel in another location that did not then why should any of us listen to anything he had to say? He says, "even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NAS) If Paul preached more than one gospel he condemned himself by his very own words. That did not happen.
In the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS) We need for the purpose of our study to emphasize the words "baptized into Christ".
What does the word "for" mean? Has Paul not tied faith in Christ directly with baptism? If you have faith in Christ you are baptized. If you do not have faith in Christ you are not baptized. It is that simple.
True faith in Christ demands baptism for the reason that Jesus taught it. You cannot have faith in Christ and yet lack faith in what he taught and commanded. (See Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:16 on what Jesus taught on the subject of baptism.)
Let me ask some questions based on this passage - Galatians 3:27. Paul says, again, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." What about those who were not baptized? Did they cloth themselves with Christ? Did Paul say for all of you who were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ? Is that what he said?
How does one get into Christ, the only place salvation can be found? Does not the text tell us clearly if we will only listen?
If Paul preached baptism once he preached it everywhere he went whether the text says he did nor not. There is absolutely no choice but to infer that he taught baptism to both Lydia and the Philipian jailer or else how did they know about it and why did they do it?
All of that said we need not make necessary inferences about baptism at Corinth for Paul in writing to the church at Corinth says in 1 Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Baptized into what body? The body of Christ as per Gal. 3:27.
Objection may be made and it be said that the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23) so baptism is really just about getting into the church. Baptism is about getting into the spiritual body of Christ and, yes, that is the church but that is also the very thing Christ is the Savior of. "He himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NAS) He has not said a word about saving anything else save his body.
One needs to get himself into Christ where salvation is and the road to doing that is certainly faith but not faith alone apart from repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism for the remission of sins which places one in Christ.
The reader should not confuse being in the church mentioned in the Bible with denominations. The thing Paul is discussing is not denominationalism which did not exist when Paul wrote and would not for hundreds of years to come. One is baptized into the New Testament church, the one Christ established and gave his life for and which will be saved on the last day. Everyone in the church will be saved provided they live faithful lives.
Now to the passage at hand which troubles some, 1 Cor. 1:14-17 (NAS), Paul speaking, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."
There are two points about this passage that we have to keep in mind lest we be led astray. (1) The problem at Corinth that Paul is discussing in the first chapter of First Corinthians is that of men making themselves disciples of various evangelists rather than of Christ alone creating division. In verse 13 Paul says, "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (answer is no - DS)" (NAS) "In the name of Paul" should read instead "into the name of Paul" (see the side margin notes in the NASB reference edition which lists the word "into" as the literal translation).
Baptism is "into Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and not into man. Only in Christ is salvation found. No one at Corinth was baptized into any man's name other than Christ. Paul was thus thankful he had not personally baptized but a very few at Corinth "that no man should say you were baptized in ("into" is the literal translation - DS) my name."
He says that in light of what was going on there. Had he baptized more then the more likely there would be more claiming to be of Paul and Paul wanted no part of this division in the church that was occurring. His point is that men are baptized into Christ, not into a man, and thus should wear the name of Christian only. There is no such thing as being of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas and it is wrong to claim allegiance to such and divide the church.
(2) The second thing we must understand is that just because Paul did not do the baptizing does not mean that his helpers such as Timothy and others did not do so on his behalf in rendering aid to him in his work. We have another account of this very thing with Jesus. John says, "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were) he left Judea." (John 4:1-2 NAS)
We need to use our common sense. Paul is not going to preach baptism and then not see that it is done when people respond to his preaching. None of us think that Peter personally baptized the 3,000 who responded to his preaching on the day of Pentecost when he preached baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). We are sure he had help. If we were to find Paul had men traveling with him who did this work why should we be shocked? 1 Cor. 12:13 certainly proves someone was doing the baptizing there.
I think we have pretty much covered the ground that needs to be covered concerning what happened in Corinth with regards to Paul's preaching and practice. The same thing happened at Corinth that happened everywhere else he preached, same gospel, same baptism for those who believed.
Friday, August 1, 2008
He Rejoiced Greatly Having Believed In God
In Acts 16 verses 23 through 34 we have the account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer at the hands of Paul and Silas who preached the gospel to him and his household. As you recall Paul and Silas had been jailed in Philippi when an earthquake at midnight loosed their bonds and opened all the prison doors. Being responsible for the prisoners the jailer assumed all had escaped and was ready to take his own life when Paul called out to him. The opportunity was given to preach the gospel to him and his household.
The first recorded words of the jailer after bringing Paul and Silas out of their cell was "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NAS) There is a lot of information that can be gleaned from those few words. First, it can be fairly inferred that the jailer was convinced that Paul and Silas were men of God who knew God's will. Perhaps their reputation had proceeded them as not long before this they had converted Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and also had cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl, a spirit that was telling all that "these men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation." (Acts 16:17-18) All of this had occurred in the city before the jailing of Paul and Silas.
Secondly, it is clear the jailer felt confident that there were things that he would have to do to be saved. It was just not completely clear to him what those things would be.
In response to the jailer's question Paul and Silas tell him to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NAS) This was a statement that needed clarification calling for preaching. What does it mean to "believe in the Lord Jesus"? The jailer needed to know. What was to be believed? He was receptive if he could only learn what it was he was to believe.
Verse 32 indicates that Paul and Silas did speak "the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house." (Acts 16:32 NAS) But, that is all that is said about the preaching. We would have to look elsewhere to find what the gospel is for we are all certain he preached the gospel. We find what the gospel is recorded in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 where Paul says, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." (NAS) He then goes on to explain it to us.
So, yes, we have a good idea of some of the things Paul and Silas preached to the Philippian jailer. But, was just believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the remission of our sins all there was to it? Those who believe so put themselves in a bind. Why?
Because the demons also believe and shudder (James 2:19), are they saved? Because "many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him" (John 12:42 NAS), can one be saved who is unwilling to confess Jesus? Now one might reply that the passage in John refers to a time before Christ's death and so is not applicable. Yes, I agree, but does that change anything? Can one believe in Jesus but refuse to confess him and yet be saved? Paul says, "with the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Rom. 10:10 NKJV) In the verse just before that (Rom. 10:9) he says, "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Yes, "if" you do. The word "if" has meaning.
Another bind that those find themselves in who say all I have to do is believe in order to be saved is that they leave out repentance all together. That ought to save the demons then, hadn't it? They believe and no repentance required for salvation.
Yes, I am sure Paul taught faith in the Lord Jesus and when understood properly that will save a man. However, faith in the Lord Jesus means you believe everything Jesus taught and believe it so strongly you obey him without question. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not just mental assent. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not disregarding his word as of no account.
Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS) We in so called Christendom say yes, I believe in Jesus. I just cannot believe what he says? Well, that is an impressive statement of faith is it not? It is sure to make him happy. No doubt about that. I know it would make me happy if you were talking about me like that.
If the whole world of Christendom gangs up on me on this issue I can only say stone me if it makes you feel good. Be that as it may what I do know for sure is that Paul once again preaches baptism to the Philippian jailer for the text says of the jailer, "immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." (Acts 16:33 NAS) I say Paul preached baptism again for earlier in the same city and in this very same chapter he preached it to Lydia as well (Acts 16:15) Unless he preached another gospel in other places than what he did in Philippi he always preached baptism whether mentioned specifically or not.
Every sincere seeker after God ought to pay close attention to verse 34. Do you want to know what it means to believe in God? The text says of the jailer that he "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." We know of a certainty that whatever else that phrase means it means at least this much - baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed. Paul and Silas taught it to the jailer and his household, they believed it, they did it, and they did it immediately in the very late night hours (after midnight). When this was done it is said THEN that the jailer "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God."
What do you think? Would the jailer have rejoiced had he heard Paul and Silas preach baptism but then said I don't believe it and I refuse to do it? Could it have been said then that he believed the word of the Lord? Even the skeptic must admit that if Paul and Silas preached baptism then it must have been part of "the word of the Lord." (Acts 16:32 NAS) A part, I might add, which they believed, believed and obeyed.
But, all of this raises other questions. Why preach baptism to the jailer or anyone else? Might it not be that Paul and Silas spoke by inspiration? Might it not be that baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed and obeyed? Might it not be that Peter speaking by inspiration in Acts 2:38 knew what he was talking about and that baptism is actually and literally for the remission of sins? Yes, I say it might be. I say even more, it is.
The first recorded words of the jailer after bringing Paul and Silas out of their cell was "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NAS) There is a lot of information that can be gleaned from those few words. First, it can be fairly inferred that the jailer was convinced that Paul and Silas were men of God who knew God's will. Perhaps their reputation had proceeded them as not long before this they had converted Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and also had cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl, a spirit that was telling all that "these men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation." (Acts 16:17-18) All of this had occurred in the city before the jailing of Paul and Silas.
Secondly, it is clear the jailer felt confident that there were things that he would have to do to be saved. It was just not completely clear to him what those things would be.
In response to the jailer's question Paul and Silas tell him to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NAS) This was a statement that needed clarification calling for preaching. What does it mean to "believe in the Lord Jesus"? The jailer needed to know. What was to be believed? He was receptive if he could only learn what it was he was to believe.
Verse 32 indicates that Paul and Silas did speak "the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house." (Acts 16:32 NAS) But, that is all that is said about the preaching. We would have to look elsewhere to find what the gospel is for we are all certain he preached the gospel. We find what the gospel is recorded in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 where Paul says, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." (NAS) He then goes on to explain it to us.
So, yes, we have a good idea of some of the things Paul and Silas preached to the Philippian jailer. But, was just believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the remission of our sins all there was to it? Those who believe so put themselves in a bind. Why?
Because the demons also believe and shudder (James 2:19), are they saved? Because "many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him" (John 12:42 NAS), can one be saved who is unwilling to confess Jesus? Now one might reply that the passage in John refers to a time before Christ's death and so is not applicable. Yes, I agree, but does that change anything? Can one believe in Jesus but refuse to confess him and yet be saved? Paul says, "with the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Rom. 10:10 NKJV) In the verse just before that (Rom. 10:9) he says, "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Yes, "if" you do. The word "if" has meaning.
Another bind that those find themselves in who say all I have to do is believe in order to be saved is that they leave out repentance all together. That ought to save the demons then, hadn't it? They believe and no repentance required for salvation.
Yes, I am sure Paul taught faith in the Lord Jesus and when understood properly that will save a man. However, faith in the Lord Jesus means you believe everything Jesus taught and believe it so strongly you obey him without question. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not just mental assent. Faith in the Lord Jesus is not disregarding his word as of no account.
Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS) We in so called Christendom say yes, I believe in Jesus. I just cannot believe what he says? Well, that is an impressive statement of faith is it not? It is sure to make him happy. No doubt about that. I know it would make me happy if you were talking about me like that.
If the whole world of Christendom gangs up on me on this issue I can only say stone me if it makes you feel good. Be that as it may what I do know for sure is that Paul once again preaches baptism to the Philippian jailer for the text says of the jailer, "immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." (Acts 16:33 NAS) I say Paul preached baptism again for earlier in the same city and in this very same chapter he preached it to Lydia as well (Acts 16:15) Unless he preached another gospel in other places than what he did in Philippi he always preached baptism whether mentioned specifically or not.
Every sincere seeker after God ought to pay close attention to verse 34. Do you want to know what it means to believe in God? The text says of the jailer that he "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." We know of a certainty that whatever else that phrase means it means at least this much - baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed. Paul and Silas taught it to the jailer and his household, they believed it, they did it, and they did it immediately in the very late night hours (after midnight). When this was done it is said THEN that the jailer "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God."
What do you think? Would the jailer have rejoiced had he heard Paul and Silas preach baptism but then said I don't believe it and I refuse to do it? Could it have been said then that he believed the word of the Lord? Even the skeptic must admit that if Paul and Silas preached baptism then it must have been part of "the word of the Lord." (Acts 16:32 NAS) A part, I might add, which they believed, believed and obeyed.
But, all of this raises other questions. Why preach baptism to the jailer or anyone else? Might it not be that Paul and Silas spoke by inspiration? Might it not be that baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed and obeyed? Might it not be that Peter speaking by inspiration in Acts 2:38 knew what he was talking about and that baptism is actually and literally for the remission of sins? Yes, I say it might be. I say even more, it is.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Be Faithful to the Lord - Conversion
"And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us." (Acts 16:15 NAS)
In Acts 16:13-15 we find the account of the conversion of Lydia in the city of Philippi. This is a very interesting conversion account and one that men have debated as to what actually happened. Yet, when one reads closely, there is little mystery to it.
Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as you recall, enter the city of Philippi to preach the gospel. Their first opportunity as far as we can tell to do so is to a group of women out at the river side at a gathering place for prayer. Lydia is one of the women gathered there.
The first mystery to some people is found in the statement in verse 14 where it is said that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Well, how did he do that? Did God take a kind of spiritual crow bar to her mind and heart and force conversion on her? Did the Holy Spirit come upon her in some mysterious operation taking over her will and making her receptive to the gospel as Paul preached it? Many think so. The reality is there is no truth to such suppositions as will soon be shown.
God opened Lydia's heart to the gospel simply by the preaching of the word. How do I know? That is a fair question. If God acted miraculously on the heart of Lydia resulting in a sort of forced conversion, one of which she had no way of resisting, and God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34 KJV), shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25), and teaches us that it is a sin to show partiality (James 2:9) then God did the very thing in converting Lydia that he says, through his word, that he does not do and that he condemns in us. None of us believe that.
Lydia's heart was opened by God's word in the same natural way yours and mine is. For example, all of us have read passages in the Bible that condemns us in something we have done at one time or another resulting in a pang of guilt and sorrow within us. Is that the Holy Spirit acting miraculously in my heart or is it the power of the word of God upon a man's heart? Yes, it is the Spirit working but working through the word, not miraculously separate and apart from the word. We retain the free will to either believe what we read allowing it to touch our hearts or the free will to pass it off and reject it.
Our hearts are left free to choose either for or against the gospel thus we can be fairly condemned for making the choice to reject it. If it was otherwise how could it be said that God was totally fair to all? In conversion God treats all the same and does not play favorites.
But, I want to make a note here about Paul's preaching that day. In earlier articles I have tried to show that in first century accounts of gospel preaching all men who preached taught the exact same thing with the same results among those who believed. Whether it was Peter, Philip, or Ananias doing the preaching, and now Paul the result was that in every case where the preaching was believed the result was that believers were baptized. When we believe the words of Peter preaching by inspiration in Acts 2:38 we readily see why that was the case.
What did Paul preach to Lydia? We all agree he taught the fundamentals of the Christian faith. With Paul as with the other evangelists of his day that included baptism for the remission of sins. The text says Lydia was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:15) but when did she do this and why? The verse before, verse 14, tells us that she was responding "to the things spoken by Paul." (NAS)
Paul preached to her the gospel. Paul preached baptism because Lydia was baptized in response to the things spoken by Paul (verse 14). Baptism then is a part of the gospel. The gospel cannot be preached without baptism being preached. We see it preached by Peter, by Philip, by Ananias, and now by Paul.
Some might respond by saying in earlier accounts found in earlier chapters of Paul's missionary efforts accounts are given where baptism is not mentioned - passages like Acts 13:12, 13:39, 48 and Acts 14:1, 14:21. The reader ought to realize two things regarding such passages.
(1) They are summary statements of what happened and not detailed accounts of conversion. For example, Acts 14:21 simply says they "made many disciples." There is no attempt to say how that was done. Acts 13:39 says "everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (NAS) True, but what is not stated is what is to be believed. In Acts 13:48 the text says "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NAS) Believed what? If they believed what Paul preached then they believed, among other things, that they must be baptized. But, the point is that such passages are just one, two or three word summaries.
Let the reader ask himself this question. None of these accounts mention a word about repentance nor should they in view of the fact they are summary statements. Do we believe that there is such a thing as salvation by faith without any repentance of sins? Again, when it is simply stated that people believed it is a summary of what took place and not a detailed account of everything they believed and believed to the point of obedience.
If we were studying the subject of biblical hermeneutics we would say the word "believed" when used in such passages as we have been talking about is used as a figure of speech called a "synecdoche." A synecdoche is "a figure of speech by which we speak of the whole by a part." (Hermeneutics, by D. R. Dungan, page 300) As Dungan says, "This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners. The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one. Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow." (page 305)
In more detailed accounts we know what was preached and what was believed by what was done. Lydia was baptized because the text says she was responding to what was preached and Paul was the preacher.
(2) Paul preached the same gospel wherever he went, not one thing in one place and something else in another. If you can find what he preached once you know he always taught the same elsewhere. Paul says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8 NAS) Paul did not preach different things in different places when it came to the gospel. If he preached baptism to Lydia he preached the same wherever he went and we know he preached it to her.
If Paul did not believe baptism for the remission of sins was essential to gospel obedience (and thus salvation) then please tell me how he could have written what he did in passages such as Rom. 6:3-4 and Gal. 3:26-27? Tell me why when Ananias told him (Paul, at that time known as Saul) "now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16 NAS) that Paul did not object and respond to Ananias along the line of now look here Ananias, I know you have the Spirit of God but the minute I met Jesus on the road I believed and was saved and so both you and the Spirit are in error. I need not be baptized to "wash away" any sins for they were forgiven me when Jesus appeared to me and I first believed. Why did he not respond that way?
It astounds me that people can claim to be saved by faith, apart from baptism, in view of the fact their claim to belief is fraud. How can I believe in Jesus and yet deny what he taught? Jesus taught both personally on the subject of baptism (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15-16) and through his Holy Spirit inspired apostles and prophets. Believe in him, just not in what he has said, and you will be saved seems to be the idea. What! How does that work? Someone needs to explain it to me.
What does it mean to be faithful to God as a new convert? Lydia says, as a new convert speaking to Paul and his party, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." (Acts 16:15 NAS) That they did because they judged her, as she says, as one who was faithful to the Lord. What did she do to become faithful? She believed what Paul preached (including baptism) and responded to it by acting upon it. If one wants to become faithful to the Lord they need to do what she did assuming they have not already done so. Would she have been judged faithful if she had not been baptized? Think on that long and hard. Paul taught it. Let us say she refused to do it. Would she then have been judged to be faithful?
One final fact about Lydia's conversion that has caused trouble is that the text says "she and her household " were baptized (Acts 16:15 NAS). The thought is that this means she and her young children maybe including infants. It is easily seen that infants were not baptized for the simple reason that baptism is of no value to one who is not a sinner as its purpose is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and infants have no sin.
But, there is another point as well confirming there was no infant baptism or baptism of very young children. Baptism saves only when accompanied by faith (Mark 16:16) for it is "he who has believed and has been baptized" that shall be saved. It is not he who is too young to believe and is baptized shall be saved.
I hope this article has been of some help.
In Acts 16:13-15 we find the account of the conversion of Lydia in the city of Philippi. This is a very interesting conversion account and one that men have debated as to what actually happened. Yet, when one reads closely, there is little mystery to it.
Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as you recall, enter the city of Philippi to preach the gospel. Their first opportunity as far as we can tell to do so is to a group of women out at the river side at a gathering place for prayer. Lydia is one of the women gathered there.
The first mystery to some people is found in the statement in verse 14 where it is said that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Well, how did he do that? Did God take a kind of spiritual crow bar to her mind and heart and force conversion on her? Did the Holy Spirit come upon her in some mysterious operation taking over her will and making her receptive to the gospel as Paul preached it? Many think so. The reality is there is no truth to such suppositions as will soon be shown.
God opened Lydia's heart to the gospel simply by the preaching of the word. How do I know? That is a fair question. If God acted miraculously on the heart of Lydia resulting in a sort of forced conversion, one of which she had no way of resisting, and God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34 KJV), shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25), and teaches us that it is a sin to show partiality (James 2:9) then God did the very thing in converting Lydia that he says, through his word, that he does not do and that he condemns in us. None of us believe that.
Lydia's heart was opened by God's word in the same natural way yours and mine is. For example, all of us have read passages in the Bible that condemns us in something we have done at one time or another resulting in a pang of guilt and sorrow within us. Is that the Holy Spirit acting miraculously in my heart or is it the power of the word of God upon a man's heart? Yes, it is the Spirit working but working through the word, not miraculously separate and apart from the word. We retain the free will to either believe what we read allowing it to touch our hearts or the free will to pass it off and reject it.
Our hearts are left free to choose either for or against the gospel thus we can be fairly condemned for making the choice to reject it. If it was otherwise how could it be said that God was totally fair to all? In conversion God treats all the same and does not play favorites.
But, I want to make a note here about Paul's preaching that day. In earlier articles I have tried to show that in first century accounts of gospel preaching all men who preached taught the exact same thing with the same results among those who believed. Whether it was Peter, Philip, or Ananias doing the preaching, and now Paul the result was that in every case where the preaching was believed the result was that believers were baptized. When we believe the words of Peter preaching by inspiration in Acts 2:38 we readily see why that was the case.
What did Paul preach to Lydia? We all agree he taught the fundamentals of the Christian faith. With Paul as with the other evangelists of his day that included baptism for the remission of sins. The text says Lydia was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:15) but when did she do this and why? The verse before, verse 14, tells us that she was responding "to the things spoken by Paul." (NAS)
Paul preached to her the gospel. Paul preached baptism because Lydia was baptized in response to the things spoken by Paul (verse 14). Baptism then is a part of the gospel. The gospel cannot be preached without baptism being preached. We see it preached by Peter, by Philip, by Ananias, and now by Paul.
Some might respond by saying in earlier accounts found in earlier chapters of Paul's missionary efforts accounts are given where baptism is not mentioned - passages like Acts 13:12, 13:39, 48 and Acts 14:1, 14:21. The reader ought to realize two things regarding such passages.
(1) They are summary statements of what happened and not detailed accounts of conversion. For example, Acts 14:21 simply says they "made many disciples." There is no attempt to say how that was done. Acts 13:39 says "everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (NAS) True, but what is not stated is what is to be believed. In Acts 13:48 the text says "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NAS) Believed what? If they believed what Paul preached then they believed, among other things, that they must be baptized. But, the point is that such passages are just one, two or three word summaries.
Let the reader ask himself this question. None of these accounts mention a word about repentance nor should they in view of the fact they are summary statements. Do we believe that there is such a thing as salvation by faith without any repentance of sins? Again, when it is simply stated that people believed it is a summary of what took place and not a detailed account of everything they believed and believed to the point of obedience.
If we were studying the subject of biblical hermeneutics we would say the word "believed" when used in such passages as we have been talking about is used as a figure of speech called a "synecdoche." A synecdoche is "a figure of speech by which we speak of the whole by a part." (Hermeneutics, by D. R. Dungan, page 300) As Dungan says, "This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners. The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one. Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow." (page 305)
In more detailed accounts we know what was preached and what was believed by what was done. Lydia was baptized because the text says she was responding to what was preached and Paul was the preacher.
(2) Paul preached the same gospel wherever he went, not one thing in one place and something else in another. If you can find what he preached once you know he always taught the same elsewhere. Paul says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8 NAS) Paul did not preach different things in different places when it came to the gospel. If he preached baptism to Lydia he preached the same wherever he went and we know he preached it to her.
If Paul did not believe baptism for the remission of sins was essential to gospel obedience (and thus salvation) then please tell me how he could have written what he did in passages such as Rom. 6:3-4 and Gal. 3:26-27? Tell me why when Ananias told him (Paul, at that time known as Saul) "now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16 NAS) that Paul did not object and respond to Ananias along the line of now look here Ananias, I know you have the Spirit of God but the minute I met Jesus on the road I believed and was saved and so both you and the Spirit are in error. I need not be baptized to "wash away" any sins for they were forgiven me when Jesus appeared to me and I first believed. Why did he not respond that way?
It astounds me that people can claim to be saved by faith, apart from baptism, in view of the fact their claim to belief is fraud. How can I believe in Jesus and yet deny what he taught? Jesus taught both personally on the subject of baptism (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15-16) and through his Holy Spirit inspired apostles and prophets. Believe in him, just not in what he has said, and you will be saved seems to be the idea. What! How does that work? Someone needs to explain it to me.
What does it mean to be faithful to God as a new convert? Lydia says, as a new convert speaking to Paul and his party, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." (Acts 16:15 NAS) That they did because they judged her, as she says, as one who was faithful to the Lord. What did she do to become faithful? She believed what Paul preached (including baptism) and responded to it by acting upon it. If one wants to become faithful to the Lord they need to do what she did assuming they have not already done so. Would she have been judged faithful if she had not been baptized? Think on that long and hard. Paul taught it. Let us say she refused to do it. Would she then have been judged to be faithful?
One final fact about Lydia's conversion that has caused trouble is that the text says "she and her household " were baptized (Acts 16:15 NAS). The thought is that this means she and her young children maybe including infants. It is easily seen that infants were not baptized for the simple reason that baptism is of no value to one who is not a sinner as its purpose is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and infants have no sin.
But, there is another point as well confirming there was no infant baptism or baptism of very young children. Baptism saves only when accompanied by faith (Mark 16:16) for it is "he who has believed and has been baptized" that shall be saved. It is not he who is too young to believe and is baptized shall be saved.
I hope this article has been of some help.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism?
In the last 4 posts we have been dealing with the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century and what that consisted of. This is another installment dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten it wrong.
The case of Cornelius is unique in the respect that he appears to have been a godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2 the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS)
If there was ever a man so good as to be able to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And, yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel.
Peter in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house once he gets back to Jerusalem throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So there were words Cornelius needed to hear in order to be saved? What were those words?
Was it not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Was it not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Was it not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save?
We have already shown in previous posts that in every instance the preaching by these inspired men immediately led to baptism on the part of those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!
Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered"? If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?
Because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.
Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.
But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter "no thanks I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on the baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel.
He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter commanded baptism.
I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)
The case of Cornelius is unique in the respect that he appears to have been a godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2 the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS)
If there was ever a man so good as to be able to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And, yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel.
Peter in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house once he gets back to Jerusalem throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So there were words Cornelius needed to hear in order to be saved? What were those words?
Was it not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Was it not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Was it not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save?
We have already shown in previous posts that in every instance the preaching by these inspired men immediately led to baptism on the part of those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!
Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered"? If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?
Because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.
Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.
But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter "no thanks I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on the baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel.
He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter commanded baptism.
I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)
Monday, July 21, 2008
Acts 9:18 Saul's Conversion
"And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized." (Acts 9:18 NAS)
[Read the prior three posts beginning with the first of those for background.]
In Acts chapter 9 verses 1 through 18 we have the account of Saul's conversion from a persecutor of Christians to an apostle of Christ. In the last 3 posts here it has been shown that in the early years of the establishment of the church that when a person heard and believed the gospel, accepting it, it always led immediately to baptism. The reader and Bible student must ask himself why? Why? Why? Why?
With Saul's conversion we have the fourth such account with the same result. Verse 18 says of Saul that "he arose and was baptized." (Acts 9:18 NAS) The reader needs to take note of some things said in earlier verses.
Jesus in speaking to Saul on the road to Damascus says to him, "enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." (Acts 9:6 NAS) Just a few verses later we see the Lord sending a man by the name of Ananias to Saul. (Acts (9:11 NAS) Ananias was sent to Saul for more than one reason, to achieve more than one end, but I ask this - was not one end to tell Saul "what you must do?" If Ananias did not tell Saul what he must do then who did? It was not Christ for he could have done it on the road to Damascus if he was going to be the one who did it.
Now what did Ananias tell Saul? Did he tell Saul you need to have faith in Jesus? Did he need to tell him that? Had not Saul become a believer already? Did he tell Saul you need to repent? Had he not done that? If his experience on the road to Damascus had not wrought these things what would it take? What do you think he told Saul "you must do" as per the words of Jesus when Jesus said it would be told him?
The text said he "arose and was baptized." Why be baptized? Was it not because it "shall be told you what you must do" and baptism was the thing he must do? But, we do not have to guess at it or reason our way to this conclusion for we can turn to Acts 22:16 where Saul recounts his conversion experience and tells us what Ananias told him. "'And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'" (Acts 22:16 NAS)
Now why was this a thing Saul must do? Because as the text in Acts 22:16 tells us baptism is for the purpose of washing away one's sins. As Peter said in Acts 2:38 it is "for the forgiveness of your sins." This is the very reason in every account of conversion that we have discussed those who believed were baptized. As Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS)
Is it so hard to believe Jesus? Is it so hard to believe Peter, to believe Philip, to believe Ananias? Judged by the belief and practice of the world it must be.
[Read the prior three posts beginning with the first of those for background.]
In Acts chapter 9 verses 1 through 18 we have the account of Saul's conversion from a persecutor of Christians to an apostle of Christ. In the last 3 posts here it has been shown that in the early years of the establishment of the church that when a person heard and believed the gospel, accepting it, it always led immediately to baptism. The reader and Bible student must ask himself why? Why? Why? Why?
With Saul's conversion we have the fourth such account with the same result. Verse 18 says of Saul that "he arose and was baptized." (Acts 9:18 NAS) The reader needs to take note of some things said in earlier verses.
Jesus in speaking to Saul on the road to Damascus says to him, "enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." (Acts 9:6 NAS) Just a few verses later we see the Lord sending a man by the name of Ananias to Saul. (Acts (9:11 NAS) Ananias was sent to Saul for more than one reason, to achieve more than one end, but I ask this - was not one end to tell Saul "what you must do?" If Ananias did not tell Saul what he must do then who did? It was not Christ for he could have done it on the road to Damascus if he was going to be the one who did it.
Now what did Ananias tell Saul? Did he tell Saul you need to have faith in Jesus? Did he need to tell him that? Had not Saul become a believer already? Did he tell Saul you need to repent? Had he not done that? If his experience on the road to Damascus had not wrought these things what would it take? What do you think he told Saul "you must do" as per the words of Jesus when Jesus said it would be told him?
The text said he "arose and was baptized." Why be baptized? Was it not because it "shall be told you what you must do" and baptism was the thing he must do? But, we do not have to guess at it or reason our way to this conclusion for we can turn to Acts 22:16 where Saul recounts his conversion experience and tells us what Ananias told him. "'And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'" (Acts 22:16 NAS)
Now why was this a thing Saul must do? Because as the text in Acts 22:16 tells us baptism is for the purpose of washing away one's sins. As Peter said in Acts 2:38 it is "for the forgiveness of your sins." This is the very reason in every account of conversion that we have discussed those who believed were baptized. As Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS)
Is it so hard to believe Jesus? Is it so hard to believe Peter, to believe Philip, to believe Ananias? Judged by the belief and practice of the world it must be.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Acts 8:35-36 Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism
"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (NAS)
[If you have not read the prior two posts read them first before reading this one.]
This is the account of Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. It relates directly to the last 2 posts and reinforces them teaching the same thing. When Jesus is preached baptism is preached. When the preaching is received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it results in people being baptized.
Why would the eunuch request baptism if he had not been taught it by Philip? Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?
Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) without which one cannot be saved.
In the prior post I talked about Philip's preaching in the city of Samaria where the Bible says he was "preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) resulting in men and women being baptized. Here in Acts 8:35-36 he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism. This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him."
We have seen two Holy Spirit inspired men in these 3 posts recording 3 preaching accounts with baptism being preached each time. They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it. Either that or they just got up and said whatever they wanted. Which do you believe?
[If you have not read the prior two posts read them first before reading this one.]
This is the account of Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. It relates directly to the last 2 posts and reinforces them teaching the same thing. When Jesus is preached baptism is preached. When the preaching is received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it results in people being baptized.
Why would the eunuch request baptism if he had not been taught it by Philip? Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?
Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) without which one cannot be saved.
In the prior post I talked about Philip's preaching in the city of Samaria where the Bible says he was "preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) resulting in men and women being baptized. Here in Acts 8:35-36 he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism. This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him."
We have seen two Holy Spirit inspired men in these 3 posts recording 3 preaching accounts with baptism being preached each time. They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it. Either that or they just got up and said whatever they wanted. Which do you believe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
