Thoughts on the Scriptures

Enemies of Christ - Audio Sermon by Waymon Swain

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:28:00 +0000

The title of this post is the link but here it is again.

Enemies of Christ - Audio Sermon by Waymon Swain

Everlasting Life – The Believer of John 3:16

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:33:00 +0000

Who has everlasting life? Is it the man Jesus spoke of in John 3:16 when he said, "whoever believes in him (speaking of himself – DS) should not perish but have everlasting life" (NKJV) or is it the man he spoke of in John 5:24 when he said, "I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life" (NKJV)? First, Jesus says in the former passage believe in him for everlasting life while later in the latter passage he says hear my words and believe in him who sent me (God the Father).

Many cling to John 3:16 with the idea being that all Jesus requires of man for salvation is a belief in Jesus without ever giving any real serious thought as to how Jesus would define a believer in himself, one whose faith is sufficient to save. They merely assume they know so every man becomes a law unto himself, declares himself a believer, and is in his mind (and often in his family and friend's minds) saved without ever offering any real concern about God's commands or any serious obedience to them. Many have made no real attempt in years to worship God or read his word let alone put him first in their life yet they are saved. We go to the funeral home for visitation and we hear how this man or woman is now in a better place.

Jesus never taught even once what such men have assumed. John 5:24 offers a commentary on John 3:16 as do many other passages throughout the New Testament concerning who the believer of John 3:16 is. When Jesus says in John 5:24, "he who hears my word" (and, of course, believes in God the Father) will have everlasting life he is not adding to what is required of man for salvation for hearing the word of God has been required of man every since Adam and Eve. But, who is the believer in Jesus who will be saved? Who is that man? It is the man who hears Jesus' word. A man cannot hear Jesus' word, disregard it or consider it unimportant, even unnecessary, and at the same time in truthfulness say he believes in Jesus.

It goes without saying when Jesus spoke of hearing his word he was not speaking of hearing with the physical ear but of heeding the words or put another way of obeying those words. The next verse, verse 25, makes this clear. "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." (NKJV) The dead spoken of here are not the physically dead but the spiritually dead and the meaning is not that just by hearing Jesus speak one would be saved but rather if you hear what he says and you believe it enough to act on it (obey it) you will live. No man has truly heard Jesus who does not believe what he says enough to take him at his word and obey him.

Further proof is provided in John 5:38 (a verse in the same chapter) where Jesus speaking of himself tells those he was speaking to, "Him (me, Jesus – DS) you do not believe." (NKJV) They heard him okay with the physical ear but they had not heard him in the sense Jesus spoke of in John 5:24. They were not heeding the message he was delivering.

Jesus closes this conversation in verses 46 and 47 where he says, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47 NKJV) You see it is not enough to just believe in Jesus that he is the Son of God. (See John 12:42-43 as an example of those who believed that but were nevertheless lost.) You must, as Jesus put it, "believe my words" and that is where the rub comes in with so many people. They are glad to believe in Jesus as being God's son, to believe in Jesus as being the Savior, but they are not glad to believe in other words he spoke and indeed reject many of them. Belief cannot be a smorgasbord of Jesus' sayings where we get to go down the line and say I will take this, and I will take that, but I will have none of that. How can we do that sort of thing and say we believe in Jesus? Do we really believe him if that is what we do? If we don't "believe him" how can we say we "believe in him?"

Most people do not believe Jesus when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) but rather believe "He who believes and is baptized, or not (either way), will be saved" (Mark 16:16 - man's version not God's). In the Great Commission, as found in Matt. 28, Jesus commanded that disciples be baptized (Matt. 28:19) but man while he says he believes in Jesus says it does not matter whether a disciple is baptized on not. He can be saved without it, says man. Yet, this very man declares his faith in Christ, faith in the very being whose word he questions. Believe in Jesus but just don't believe everything Jesus says seems to be the idea. You will then be saved by faith in Jesus.

The world may believe this kind of perverted logic (?) but I am not among their number. It all comes down to a question of "what is belief in Jesus?" Of what does that faith consist? We are worlds apart on that. To believe in Jesus is to believe what the Son of Man, the Son of God, said. If you can't believe or won't believe what the Son of man - the Son of God - said you are not a believer in him. If I can't believe a man's word out in the everyday world it is quite a stretch to say I believe in him. It is no different in the Bible as one considers Jesus and his word.

When Jesus declares a man has everlasting life based on a certain condition then that condition becomes mandatory and is not a matter of personal preference as to whether it is required for salvation or not. The same holds true if he phrases it some other way – for instance uses the term "eternal life," or the phrase "is saved," or the words "will see the kingdom of heaven." Whatever Jesus states as necessary to salvation under any and all such descriptive terms is required of man, man's thoughts to the contrary notwithstanding. To fail to believe Jesus (fail to believe what he says) is to fail to believe in him.

A good example of what I am talking about is found in Matt. 7:21 where Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father in heaven." (Matt. 7:21 NKJV) If you really believe in Jesus you must believe what he said here and thus understand that salvation is dependent on keeping the commands of God. You will either believe that or else you will not believe Jesus and thus do not believe in him in any sense of having a faith that will save you.

We must always remember that while we are saved by faith it is only a certain type of faith, a faith that is inclusive of trust and obedience. James makes light of a non-obedient faith, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14 NKJV) "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:26 NKJV)

So, in closing, I ask who is the believer of John 3:16 who has everlasting life? I answer by saying he is not the man most of the world thinks he is. He is a man who has the faith of Abraham of whom the Bible says, "By faith Abraham obeyed." (Heb. 11:8 NKJV) To what extent did Abraham obey? To the extent he was in the very act of offering Isaac as a burnt offering to God because God had commanded it before God stopped him. This is the Abraham of whom the Bible says is "the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also." (Rom. 4:11 NKJV)

The believer who is blessed of God, the believer in Jesus of John 3:16, is the believer who does not question Jesus or declare some of his commands as unnecessary but obeys them all to the best of his ability because in believing in Jesus it necessarily follows that he believes Jesus. He only is the true believer of whom it can be said he has everlasting life.

Who is the Believer in John 3:16?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:34:00 +0000

Sometimes things that are the most obvious are also the easiest to overlook. No passage in the Bible is better known nor been memorized more than Jesus' statement in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJV) This was part of a conversation that Jesus was having with a man named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews who came to Jesus by night confessing that Jesus had to be a teacher from God because of the miracles he had been doing. "No one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." (John 3:2 NKJV) The reader would do well to open his Bible to John 3 and if you have a red letter edition all the better. You can readily see this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus runs from John 3:1-21.

John 3:16 has given comfort to many, self included, as it should. It clearly teaches, for it clearly states, that the believer in Jesus will have eternal life. But, unfortunately, this a verse that has been isolated not only from the rest of the teaching of the New Testament but even ripped from its immediate context and thus made to mean what men desire it to mean versus what it teaches when taken in context.

Who is this person who will have everlasting life? Who is this believer? Is it not the same person that will see the kingdom of heaven if he is "born again" in verse 3 and who will enter the kingdom of God if he is "born of water and the Spirit" in verse 5? Most certainly! It is all the same conversation directed at the same man, the man Nicodemus.

The believer of John 3:16 is the man who is born again (verse 3), is the man who is born of water and the Spirit (verse 5). If this is not the same man, the man of John 3:16 and the man of John 3:3,5, then we have Jesus contradicting himself and teaching one man is going to be saved one way in the earlier passages and another way in the later passage. Surely, all can see Jesus is talking about the same individual.

Unfortunately, for the faith only crowd, this makes the believer of John 3:16 who will be saved a baptized person. The person who is born again, born of water and the Spirit, is the person who led by the Spirit came to a belief so strong as to lead him to be baptized (which is the water of John 3:5). As Jesus taught elsewhere, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) Who is the person who does not believe? It is the person who is not baptized. He is the person who does not believe Jesus when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." He is the person who does not believe one must be born again of water and the Spirit. Of the Spirit, yes, he believes that, but does not believe the water part.

One cannot be a believer in Jesus while not believing Jesus. You do not believe Jesus if part of his word is no good to you and you reject it. The believer in Jesus is the man who takes Jesus at his word – yes, all his word. In this very same chapter there is another verse confirming this very thing. Note John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (NKJV) The phrase "does not believe the Son" means just that – does not believe what Jesus says. That man shall not be saved. That man does not believe in Jesus even though he may proclaim his faith day and night.

The phrase "does not believe the Son" is in some translations translated differently, by the words "does not obey the Son" (NAS, ESV). Why? The Greek behind both translations is the word "apeitheo." Thayer, famous for his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says this word means "to not allow one's self to be persuaded." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says it means, "to refuse to be persuaded, to refuse belief, to be disobedient." (page 311) Adam Clarke, the well known Bible commentator, says the person being spoken of in this verse is, "The person who will not be persuaded, in consequence, does not believe; and, not having believed, he cannot obey." This seems to be the consensus meaning of the Greek. It is a person who does not believe and thus cannot obey because of his unbelief. One can see then how either translation would be acceptable, "does not believe" as in the NKJV or "does not obey" as in the NAS and ESV. The NAS reference edition admits as much for in its side margin notes it has "Or, believe" even though it translates in the text itself "does not obey."

So, what do we learn from John 3:36? Simple! To believe in the Son for salvation (as per John 3:16) means one believes the Son enough to be persuaded by him to obey what he says. So we see again, looking at it from the perspective of another verse in the same chapter, that it is he who is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5 NKJV) who will "enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) for that is the man who is persuaded enough by the words of Jesus to obey him because he believes him. This is the man who believes in Him so that he should not perish but have everlasting life.

The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:20:00 +0000

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its tie in with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I would encourage the reader to compare this passage as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what it says.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy and we are justified by his grace which is one and the same thing. To be saved is to be justified. But, let us be honest - is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is a word that means, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, "1 : formed or created again 2 : spiritually reborn or converted". Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind other scriptures that teach the same thing. Jesus says, "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) Paul teaches in Titus 3:4 what Jesus taught in John 3:5.

The word washed or washing is in places used as a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told if you read carefully.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "’And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’" The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and (now watch it - DS) our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus - Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that but if we will be honest he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version says not "he saved us through the washing of regeneration … " (NKJV) but "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV) as does the New American Standard Version.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thing only - the saving act of God that brings salvation. The idea is that salvation is all of God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. Where this idea came from I have no idea as my mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not make that thing required of him a work that merits (or earns) salvation. Noah may have had to of built the ark to be saved (because God required it) but it was not tar and wood built in the form of a ship by hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man ever was saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse says it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus. Who you going to believe? I know whom I believe.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was God’s warning to Noah and his instructions to him to build an ark for the saving of his household. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just as Noah did. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the passage in Titus that it says "he saved us." (Titus 3:5 NKJV) When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves on our own power or by our own works. Any man who thinks he is going to save himself on his own power and thus feels he does not need God is a fool plain and simple. Noah built the ark but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. You and I are baptized but that does not mean we saved ourselves apart from God. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 to 1200 students. The other day I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God."

The quote was taken from the textbook "World History" by Prentice Hall written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year is 2010 (put in for future reference in years to come as others may read this article down the road). Reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it. "Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding." (Prov. 23:23 NKJV)

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential.)

The Christian, Politics, and the Government

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:13:00 +0000

What role if any should the Christian play in politics? All any man can know about the subject is what the Bible says and since it was written for the benefit and enlightenment of all men in all ages of time from the time it was first penned until the last day of this earth’s existence and for all cultures and under all the different kinds of governments under which men have lived it speaks to us not in specifics but in general statements on the subject. As it relates to specifics it is often hard to know exactly what one ought to do under some of the scenarios which arise but we have God given principles by which we can act.

I write on this topic not so much out of a desire to do so but because a discussion of the subject is needed especially at this time where here in America I doubt the country has ever been more sharply divided than it is now other than in the years leading up to and during the Civil War. There are two very distinct trains of thought in our society about what the nature of our country ought to be and it seems any middle ground has disappeared leading to anger and bitterness on both sides. So where does a Christian fit in, what does he do, what should he do? What does the Bible teach?

First of all it should be clear to all who truly want to be what a Christian ought to be that one’s first order of business ought to be to be as much of a Christian as he/she can be every single day of his/her life. What does that mean? It means I ought to live a spiritual life daily. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-23 NKJV) Just above this passage in Gal. 5:19-21 are listed the “works of the flesh” (V. 19) of which I would like to list two of those works that are listed as they pertain most directly to the topic at hand (politics), namely, “hatred” (v. 20) and “outbursts of wrath” (v. 20). The reader can clearly see the contrasts between the works of the flesh and those of the spirit.

Furthermore, there is a passage in Eph. 4:31 which also speaks directly to the issue, “Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.” (NKJV) When we (Americans) are so deeply divided over the issues it is very easy for a citizen who is also a Christian to become bitter and angry and think and speak evil of others who are in opposition and even reach the point where he/she despises them in his/her heart. Yes, the Bible teaches we ought to hate evil, “You who love the Lord, hate evil!” (Psalms 97:10 NKJV, see also Prov. 8:13 and Amos 5:15) Hate the evil but love the person. “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8 NKJV)

We ought to hate the evil a government does when it enacts laws that are contrary and supportive of evil (say as examples laws supporting gay marriage and abortion) and it must be admitted for it cannot be denied that government is made up of the men and women who make the laws. Yes, they are responsible for the evil a government may allow or do in its lawmaking and governing capacity but in a democracy we are also accountable in that we vote the lawmakers and the executive into or out of office. We as a nation will be held accountable which means we do need to vote for those candidates running for office who are most supportive of Christian principles.

We can and ought to hate laws that are contrary to God’s teaching in the New Testament and also the kind of thinking that leads to those laws but yet have compassion for the misguided lawmakers who made them in that each has a soul that is worth more than all of the wealth of this world combined. “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26 NKJV) Jesus said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Mark 2:17 NKJV) That was his mission. What is the mission of his servants? Are we in the condemning them to hell camp or are we in the converting them to Christ camp? If our reaction to ungodly laws that are passed is one of hatred, anger, bitterness, railing, and reviling against the lawmakers then we have done two things – (1) we have allowed politics to destroy our own soul and our hope for heaven and (2) we have ended any hope that those responsible can be converted due to our unChrist like attitude and reaction toward them.

Do not misunderstand, the unjust are not going to heaven, which includes lawmakers who have promoted sin via the laws they have helped pass. The Bible does not teach that they are. It does teach, however, that the Christian’s job is to do his/her best to bring the world to Christ. We must teach the truth of the Bible on every Bible subject. If the powers that be in government reject the truth God will deal with them on the last day. “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV) As for the Christian God says, “give place to wrath” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV) or as the ESV translates it, “never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” (Rom. 12:19 ESV)

The Bible teaches we ought to pray for those in authority. “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:1-4 NKJV)

One might say what do we pray for when we pray for them? We might pray any number of things. We might pray that they be given wisdom, that if there is need that they might be led to repentance, we might pray that God would work providentially in their life to help them see the light, we might pray for their welfare and that of their family, and as the text says we should give thanksgiving for them. We might say sometimes what is there to be thankful for in some men? Well, we ought to look for the good. Generally speaking a man who can only see evil in another is probably not looking very hard for any good in him.

No one was ever more unjustly mistreated by government than Jesus himself. Pilate declared Jesus innocent when he said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person” (Matt. 27:24 NKJV) and then turned right around and had Jesus “scourged” (Matt. 27:26 NKJV) and handed him over to be put to death. Do you think that might have aroused bitterness and anger in most of us had we of been in Jesus’ shoes or been a family member or close friend? Yet, Jesus “was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” (Isa. 53:7 NKJV)

Peter says, “when he was reviled, did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously.” (1 Peter 2:23 NKJV) God is the ultimate judge of everything and everyone. The government may do great evil but the Christian answer is to follow the example of Jesus. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12:21 NKJV) “Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV)

That God does judge governments (thus countries) cannot be doubted by any person who has ever read the Old Testament. It was not just Israel and Judah that God judged and brought to ruin. If you will read the Old Testament prophets you will read of nation after nation that God prophesied judgment against through his prophets and eventually brought to ruin.

Even before that we can go back to the time the children of Israel were given the land of Palestine after their departure from Egypt? Why did God drive out and destroy those nations that occupied the land before Israel? Because of evil, of sin, of wrong doing. Moses speaking on behalf of God told Israel prior to their entry into the promised land that “it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out from before you.” (Deut. 9:4 NKJV) Every nation God brought judgment against in the Old Testament was brought to judgment because of its sin and evil.

A couple of points need to be made here. (1) Generally speaking a country comes to be whatever its leadership leads it to be or allows it to be. Thus, in the Old Testament history of God’s people we read of good kings and bad kings. When a bad king ruled idolatry and other evils were in the ascendancy; when a good king came to power a check was put on that and some, if not all, of the evil was rolled back. Leadership (government) is always for the better or the worse. (2) God will eventually judge a nation for its evil even if the leadership led it to be that way unless there is repentance. Needless to say repentance is hard to come by. (The reader would do well to read Jer. 18:7-10.)

Unfortunately, from a human point of view, when God brings judgment on a nation the just often suffer along with the unjust even if it be only for a time. When Judah was carried away into Babylonian captivity for the sins of the nation Daniel and his three friends had to go too even though guilty of no sin themselves. The just became captives along with the unjust.

Romans 13 is the chapter that tells us our duties as Christians toward the government. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Rom. 13:1 ESV) Paul goes on to say, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Rom. 13:2 ESV) Paul then goes on to explain that government is meant for our good, not to bring evil upon us. (Rom. 13:3-7) I think we all understand the need for government and how there must be laws, rules, and regulations for our safety and wellbeing. Try and imagine living in a world of utter chaos and lawlessness where there was no government at all and it was every man for himself.

There is also a passage in Titus we need to take note of, “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.” (Titus 3:1-2 NKJV) So we are to obey government but there is more here in this passage for our consideration. One who desires to get involved in politics ought to ask himself this question – can I do it and obey the scriptures at the same time? Will it lead me to be peaceable, gentle, to be humble, and to never speak evil of another or will it make all of that harder for me?

By getting involved I am not speaking about running for office (although that would be included) as much as I am about becoming immersed in politics in that I follow it so intently that it comes to be a major part of my life and my being. We need to be informed citizens and know the issues and the candidates but when I become so immersed in politics through the news outlets and programs that it begins to dominate my life almost like being possessed that is what I have in mind and am talking about. Is that good for the Christian? Will it help or hinder you in developing the fruit of the spirit in your life?

Does there ever come a time when government must be resisted? Peter answered that question in Acts 5:29 when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (NKJV) He was not speaking to the Roman authorities as he spoke but rather to the Jewish authorities. Nevertheless, the principle would be the same. If our government was to fall into the hands of Islam and we were commanded by Iaw to abandon the Bible and Jesus as Lord do you think God would say okay, obey the government you are now under? To ask is to answer.

When I say that under such circumstances we ought to resist the government I do not mean by taking up arms. Christians do not go to war to fight, kill, and maim but we ought to do as Peter and the other apostles did. What did Peter and the other apostles do? They simply continued to go on about their business of being Christians and doing the Lord’s will. Now I grant you some Christians did die because of it (Stephen and later James come to mind) but they were to “rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings.” (1 Peter 4:13 NKJV) “Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to him in doing good, as to a faithful creator.” (1 Peter 4:19 NKJV)

The Christians in the church of Smyrna were told, “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10 KJV) Here is an example of the government throwing Christians into prison (who else had that power) and possibly, if I understand the passage correctly, ending in their death although the phrase does not have to mean that. It is certainly, however, an admonition to faithfulness even if death is the result.

The Bible teaches not that every single government that has ever existed has been good and has done what is right. If so why did God destroy the nations he did in the Old Testament? If so why were so many Christians murdered by the Roman government in the first two to three centuries after the Christian faith came to be? It does teach we are to submit to government and only resist in the way I have spoken of and only do that when the laws made by men violate the law of God. The resistance consists solely of living as a Christian despite what the government might do to prevent it.

The God given purpose of government is for the good of man. However, as long as men are the governing body men will be men which inevitably means there will be some ungodliness in them. That is not God’s fault but man’s.

So, to what extent should a Christian become involved in politics? I think I should ask a better question, one that is also easier to answer, and is more personal. To what extent do you think you can do so and still maintain the fruit of the spirit and be the person God would have you to be? When I answer that question for myself I know it pretty much sets some severe limits on my involvement. As a Christian living in a democracy and having been given the right to vote I feel I have the duty to go vote even if it means for the lesser of two evils so to speak. Beyond that I think I need to leave it with God for my soul’s sake.

If we believe God is still an active God in the affairs of man (I believe the Bible teaches he is) then he is going to work it all out eventually in the way that is in accord with his will and righteous nature. Yes, that may mean sometimes evil men rule but they rule for a reason if they do (God knows why). But, always bear in mind God is in charge. Daniel talks about a decree made against King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:17 and says it was made, “In order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever he will, and sets over it the lowest of men.” (NKJV)

God is in charge. Evil governments may arise for a time but they shall be punished for their evil eventually. If you think your government is evil and doing wrong and you are right about that God will take care of it in due time one way or another unless there is repentance. Sin never goes unpunished unless repented of and forgiven. But the question is for me as an individual – what do I do as it relates to politics and the government? The answer is I live as a Christian.

The Mysterious Eloquent Evangelist

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:41:00 +0000

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.

Gospel Obedience at Corinth - What Really Happened?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:53:00 +0000

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.

He Rejoiced Greatly Having Believed In God

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:24:00 +0000

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.

Be Faithful to the Lord - Conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:47:00 +0000

"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.

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:12:00 +0000

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)

Acts 9:18 Saul's Conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:45:00 +0000

"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.

Acts 8:35-36 Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:50:00 +0000

"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?

Acts 8:12 Receiving The Gospel Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:05:00 +0000

"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (NAS)

It would be good to read or reread my last post on this subject, the post of July 12th, on Acts 2:41. Acts 8:12 is pretty much a parallel passage teaching the same thing. What was the good news Philip preached? Was it the gospel? If it was not the gospel what was it? If it was not the gospel these people of whom it is said "they believed" walked away lost in their sins. Philip preached the gospel.

The text says "they believed Philip" with regards to what he was teaching. This is the equivalent of "those who had received his word" with reference to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41. When they believed Philip what did they do? The text says "they were being baptized" when they believed. In Acts 2:41 when they received Peter's word what did they do? They were baptized. Thus we see that in the beginning of the church, of Christianity, of faith in Christ that when the gospel was preached and believed or received it led to people being baptized. There has to be a reason for that.

Is baptism a part of the gospel? Is it a part of the good news of the gospel? It is if it is "for the forgiveness of your sins" as per Acts 2:38. It is if Peter preached it. It is if Philip preached it. It is if these two Holy Spirit inspired men preached it.

Only when one receives the word, the gospel, only when one believes it is he baptized. Those who did not receive the word, did not believe it, were not baptized. This pretty much tells us who has believed the gospel and who has believed something else. If you believe something else you are not baptized. We ought to consider that seriously.

We know in both cases baptism was preached for how else were people led to be baptized? What led Philip's audience to be baptized if Philip did not preach it? Where did they learn about baptism if he did not preach it? Why were people baptized on the Day of Pentecost under Peter's preaching if he did not preach it? But, we do not have to guess about Peter's preaching for Peter's words were "repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of you sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS)

If you have never been baptized for the remission of sins you are in a fight against God. Don't be one of those who insist on being saved their way rather than the way taught by Peter and Philip, by the Holy Spirit. You cannot win in a fight against God. It is his way or the highway. You cannot become a child of God by disobedience, by ignoring his word, by doing it the way my group believes. God only has one group - those who have done it his way. It is "the Way."

Acts 2:41 Receiving The Gospel Part I - Do We Do It This Way?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:02:00 +0000

"So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Act 2:41 NAS)

In my younger days I use to hear about those preachers on tv or radio who would tell their listening audience words to the effect that if they wanted to receive Jesus and salvation just to lay their hand on top the set, say certain words in the form of a prayer and presto - salvation. For all I know they may still be telling them that as I do not watch tv evangelists. It sounds good but is there any truth to it?

In Acts 2 just about everyone I know of or ever heard of admits that Peter preaches the first gospel sermon there ever to be preached. The text then says, "those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (NAS) What was his word that they received? Was it the gospel? If it was not would you be willing to stand up and shout to the world "no it was not the gospel" and go on public record? And, if not why not?

Most denominational bodies run into serious trouble with this verse for if Peter did indeed preach a gospel sermon here then to receive it the text teaches that baptism is required. They cannot accept that or are unwilling to.

The New Living Translation, a dynamic equivalence translation, puts it this way, "Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day …". The International Standard Version translates this way, "So those who welcomed his message were baptized … ". The New King James Version says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized … ". (Italicizing and underlining by me - DS)

I guess one who does not believe that baptism is essential for remission of sins can choose his poison here. What had Peter preached? "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins … ". (Acts 2:38 NAS)

Will one "believe" what Peter said as per the New Living Translation or will he "welcome Peter's message" as per the International Standard Version or will he "gladly receive" his message as per the New King James Version? Most denominationalists will do none of the above. Not only will they not receive Peter's words, words spoken by the Holy Spirit, but they are ashamed of them. You could not pay them to preach the sermon Peter did with its closing of "repent, and be baptized every of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 KJV) They do not believe what Peter spoke, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be true. They are not willing to receive his words.

Be all of that as it may do not be misled. God is able to say what he means to say. He is able to communicate clearly. If you gladly receive the word Peter preached (I ask again did he preach the gospel?) you will do what, he by the Holy Spirit, told you to do.

Please note those who did not receive the gospel were those who did not repent and were not baptized and were not added to them (the disciples) that day.

I know religion is full of emotion and emotion often overcomes the ability to think and reason correctly. We have so much invested in a false proposition we will not allow our minds to even think it could be otherwise or even consider such a thing. However, the Christian religion is based on truth, not error, and the overcoming of self and acceptance of God which means accepting what he says. You can obey Jesus by obeying the words of Peter if you will. Emotions can change over time. Truth cannot.

Heb. 10:26-27 Willful Sin - Can Anyone Be Saved?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:59:00 +0000

Heb. 10:26-27 "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (NKJV)

These verses have probably caused Christians about as much anguish as any you will find in the pages of the New Testament. Make no mistake about it the verses are directed at Christians as is the whole book of Hebrews. Each one of us knows we are guilty of having committed willful sin and this passage troubles us. When we read the verses in the larger context of verses 24 through 31 it is very easy to become fearful and feel it is hopeless, we are lost and undone without remedy. We are sorry about our sins but we feel it is too late.

However, there are a number of things we ought to consider before reaching that kind of conclusion. When we take a look at verse 26 in the New American Standard version we readily see that the verse is not talking about a single act of willful sin. It reads as follows, "For if we go on sinning willfully ... " thus the sin of verse 26 is a way of life rather than individual acts of sin.

Then there are other things we need to consider. All sin other than sins of ignorance are willful sin. One may struggle mightily before committing the sin that has enticed him but nevertheless it was his decision to take the leap and commit it. If a willful sin necessarily led to condemnation without hope then who could be saved? Would it be Peter?

Peter, according to Paul, stood condemned (Gal. 2:11). Why? Because "he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12 NAS) refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians. Barnabas did the same thing. Do you think this was a sin of ignorance? Paul gives the cause, not ignorance but fear of the circumcision party. It was a willful sin in the sense that Peter knew what he was doing.

How about the man in 1 Cor. 5:1, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife." (NAS) Did this man who was doing this not know it was sin? You know he did. Yet, in 2 Cor. 2:7 Paul urges the Corinthians to forgive the man as he had repented. I remind the reader Paul wrote and spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 12:21 clinches the meaning of Heb. 10:26 for me. It reads as follows, "I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced." (NAS) What do we have here? Christians practicing sin. That implies certainly that we are not talking of one time acts. Are they lost?

Yes, if they do not repent but please note that is the very thing Paul is saying they can do. Why is Paul fearful that he may end up mourning? Because they have not repented but that implies they could if they would and thus would be saved. We also understand they knew what they were doing. The word translated "immorality" in this verse in the NAS is translated in the NKJV and others as "fornication". It is the Greek word "porneia." Do you really believe these people did not know fornication was sinful? They were committing willful sin and yet we see they could be forgiven if they would but repent.

What then is the meaning of Heb. 10:26-27? Any sin you are knowingly committing and continuing in is a willful sin as long as you continue in it and fail (refuse) to repent. While involved in that there is no sacrifice for that sin that can save you as a willful practicing sinner. When you repent that is another matter.

I believe verse 27 bears the truth of this interpretation out. It says of such a person (a Christian involved in a sin on a continual basis willfully) that there is "a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (NKJV) Why would you fear judgment if you were a complete apostate who no longer believed?

I hope this post has been helpful to you and encouraging. Do not despair because you knowingly did that which was wrong even if you engaged in such a sin over a period of time. Do not despair but rather repent and turn back to God.

Gen. 37:31-33 Faith Based On Deception

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:58:00 +0000

Gen. 37:31-33, "So they took Joseph's tunic, killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the tunic in the blood. Then they sent the tunic of many colors, and they brought it to their father and said, 'We have found this. Do you know whether it is your son's tunic or not?' And he recognized it and said, 'It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces.'" (NKJV)

Faith can be based on false information or misunderstanding and yet be so strong that one is firmly convinced that the error he believes is the truth. Because of the evidence presented to him (misinformation) Jacob was certain his son Joseph was dead, killed as he said by "a wild beast". (Gen 37:33 NAS) He was fed disinformation and with good reason, based on the information he was presented with, believed that which was false.

Why would he disbelieve? Did he not get his information from people he had complete trust in? Every Christian ought to immediately perk his ears up when he thinks back on this account and take heed and learn from it. We can be misled by the very people we have the utmost trust in. In Jacob's case it was deliberate but certainly one can also be misled by those who themselves sincerely believe error and propagate it.

In the case of the first sin ever committed the Bible teaches that Eve was indeed deceived, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (Paul in 2 Cor. 11:3 NKJV) So, a person can be honestly deceived.

This deception can be delivered by way of those who seem to be "ministers of righteousness." (2 Cor. 11:15 NKJV) Paul says, "For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14-15 NKJV)

Satan quoted scripture to Jesus while tempting him after his baptism. False teachers can quote scripture. We today are gullible. We believe about anything that is called Christian, whether in doctrine or works, is God approved. We just accept it and go on and assume it is fine with God and in accord with New Testament teaching. We need to beware.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV)

John 1:12-13 Born Again At The Point of Faith?

noreply@blogger.com (Denny Smith) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:01:00 +0000

John 1:12-13 from the New American Standard Version

(12) "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name:

(13) "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will on man, but of God."

Many believe that they are born again (become Christians) at the moment they come to believe in Jesus as the Savior. This is a common misconception. At first glance without some thought John 1:12-13 seems to support that idea. The reality is that it does not.

You can immediately see if you are a careful student that as written verse 12 is in conflict with verse 13. Verse 12 says that those who believe have the right to become God's children meaning they are not yet - not at the point of belief. Yet, verse 13 says says they were born of God.

How does one deal with this apparent contradiction? If you have a New American Standard Reference Edition Bible (one of the best reference Bibles on the market) you will find in the reference notes on verse 13 that the word "born" could have been "begotten". It is a translators choice as to which word to use. In fact, the Analytical-Literal Translation uses the word "begotten." Use the word "begotten" and the conflict between verse 12 and 13 disappears.

How do we know the word "begotten" is the correct word to use here when either "begotten" or "born" can be used with justification as a translation of the Greek? There are three reasons. (1) The Bible cannot contradict itself and be true. Use the word "born" here and you have a contradiction between the two verses. (2) There is always a begettal before a birth. (3) By Paul's conversion experience.

Paul most certainly believed when confronted with Jesus himself on the road to Damascus (Acts 22) but when Ananias came to him 3 days later he told Paul to "'Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'" (Acts 22:16 NAS) Do you not find it strikingly strange that a man who believes with his whole heart still has sins 3 days later? It shouldn't because Paul was begotten 3 days earlier, not born again.

Jesus says water is is a part of the new birth (John 3:1-7, see verse 5). When we understand what is involved in the new birth thus understanding how one becomes a Christian we will know when to use the word "begotten" versus "born." Remember as a correct translation of the Greek either is correct but there are times when the context demands one or the other. In John 1:13 there is really no choice unless you desire a Bible contradiction in which case the Bible cannot be true. When you understand John 1:12-13 you will understand that faith alone is not enough to make you a child of God no matter what anyone tells you.