Helping Those Who Hate God

“And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you,” 2 Chronicles 19:2. Jehoshaphat, though a good king who showed much promise (see 2 Chronicles 19:3), still made a critical blunder: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?”

Jehu referred to the king’s support and friendliness toward Ahab, one of Israel’s most evil kings. It is written of him: “Now Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord, more than all who were before him. And it came to pass, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took as wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; and he went and served Baal and worshiped him… and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him,” (1 Kings 16:30, 31, 33). Ahab married one of the most vile women ever spawned: Jezebel, the daughter of the King of Sidon. She was a vain, proud, utterly ruthless idolater whose religion, Baal-worship, included infanticide and ritual fornication. When Ahab coveted Naboth’s vineyard, she conceived a successful plan to have him framed for blasphemy and executed, to acquire the property for her husband. She intended to destroy Elijah as well, but received her comeuppance before she could carry it out. Together, she and Ahab made a pair whose names would rank high in the roll call of infamous enemies of God.

Jehoshaphat’s error was not a matter of “guilt by association.” It went beyond that. The king of Judah assisted Ahab by sealing an alliance in marriage and agreeing to help him in a military operation. He went as far as to tell his ally, “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will be with you in the war,” (2 Chronicles 18:3).

What did Jehoshaphat do to provoke God’s anger against him?

1. He allied himself with a wicked, perverse, man. Ahab was given over to idolatry and sinfulness. Jehoshaphat was God’s man. The two may have had to associate at times, but never should they have been unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14).

2. He thought he could have it both ways—being Ahab’s friend AND the Lord’s. The Lord would have none of it and He will have none of it today. “You cannot drink of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons” (1 Corinthians 10:21). Jehoshaphat knew of Ahab’s transgressions, but he thought he could keep his own beliefs separate and his reputation spotless while still promoting his friendship with Ahab. He was deceiving himself.

3. He thought he could sacrifice something he found personally disagreeable to get something he wanted. For politics’ sake, not to mention a bit of personal enjoyment (see 2 Chronicles 18:2), he turned a blind eye to Ahab’s ungodliness. In this instance, he wanted to keep on good terms with his neighbor and kinsman more than on good terms with God.

4. He probably allowed his kinship with Ahab to override the terrible crimes he knew Ahab was committing. Both he and Ahab were Hebrews, sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were of the same race. There would be a natural loyalty that could supersede all other factors, including the enormity of his kinsman’s sins. That may have been the case.

There are some valuable lessons in this for us:

1. We had better find out for sure what our friends think about God before we get too close to them. We must love God more than anyone else, and honor Him and His will above all. If it means distancing ourselves from them due to their ungodliness, then so be it. If we bid “Godspeed” to those who make themselves the enemies of God, whether it be through their doctrinal error, or give tacit support to immoral behavior, we partake of their sins (2 John 9-11) and give tacit approval to them (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2).

2. We cannot be bosom buddies with the ungodly, and, at the same time, sons and daughters of the holy God whom we worship and serve. No matter what our ties are to them, or how profitable it is for us in the relationship with them, we cannot sacrifice God on the altar of expediency or personal aggrandizement. It is not a matter of being “holier than thou” but of keeping ourselves from temptation and free of God’s ire.

3. Kinship, by blood, race, ethnicity, gender, or political affiliation, must have nothing to do with how we admire or rate people. If what they do and believe stands in opposition to what is right and of God, we must resist and oppose them. If they are Christians bent on sinning, we should mourn their wickedness and see them penitent before we embrace them again as brothers (1 Corinthians 5:2-7, 11-13).

This is especially critical whenever we enter a voting booth. Are we going to help those (by voting for them) who hate God because we think we can keep our personal beliefs separate from theirs; or because they have promised us financial aid; or because they share our skin color, ethnicity, ancestry, gender, or political affiliation? Or will we lay aside all those things and cast our vote for righteousness? If we vote for someone who upholds evil, then we most certainly have betrayed our principles and our God. Nor is it suitable to console ourselves by deciding not to vote at all. A stifled vote is a vote for the status quo. Neutrality, where righteousness is at stake, is not an option for a Christian worthy of the name. “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels,” (Mark 8:38).

May God grant us the courage to choose Him and righteousness over all, and everyone, else, lest we earn God’s ire by helping those who hate Him.

A Church for All Seasons

There is a sign on a local church building which proudly proclaims: “A Church for Those Who Don’t Like Church.” A number of things came to mind when I saw that. I will comment on a few of them.

Obviously, their idea of “church” is the standard, if not Biblically accurate, concept: a building where people gather to hear preaching, music, offer prayer, and whatever the current format happens to be depending on denominational creeds and liturgy. I would suppose they dispense with the parts that people find disagreeable and concentrate on things which allow for a lot of freedom of expression. That seems to be the current norm in society today: whatever makes for the best entertainment is what to do. That way, we can have a church for all seasons; one sure to appeal to something in everybody regardless of religious slant. It is a shame that it has come to this, but it has for a variety of reasons:

(1)  I dare to allege that a vast majority of people who consider themselves Christians are willfully Biblical illiterates. They do not seem to care what the Word of God has to say about the church and true worship, or else they appear devoid of any deep-seated incentive to expend the energy to research it for themselves. It is an embarrassing indictment of the depth of religious ignorance and decadence into which American religious society, once self-confessed to be “Christian,” at least in general nature, has fallen.  We are nearing rock bottom.

(2) What is clear Bible teaching—that the church is the Body (not the head) of Christ (Colossians 1:18), and worship is by nature God-centered (John 4:21-24)—is thoroughly and notably absent in the minds of many. The primary interest seems to be in pacifying the flesh with excessive emotional display, self-gratification, and the pursuit of “warm fuzzies” to prove the Holy Spirit is present and approving. Woefully diminished, if not entirely evaporated, is the compelling drive to approach God to offer sacrifices HIS way, and His way alone, as the Bible commands of Christians in the New Testament. That is no longer good enough because it is not what most people want out of “church” these days.

(3) The Standard of Authority, the New Testament, is viewed by many as nothing more than a menu at a favorite restaurant. If you like what’s in it, well and good, and if not, skip it. As a mother told her child in reference to the Bible: “It is like eating fish; I swallow the meat and spit out the bones.” Like her, many have relegated God’s Inspired Word to mere guideline status. To them, it is no longer (if it ever was) the Manual for Life with God, but a wine list; not the Holy Spirit’s Record, but a philosophy primer; not God’s Divine Playbook, but an intriguing mystery magazine to be leisurely enjoyed. Satan must be quite pleased with us.

God has not left us in the dark about what “church” is and how to approach Him acceptably (yes, worship is about HIM and not about US). We can continue to diversify the church, the Body of Christ, dissecting it into even more creeds and denominations, until it looks worse than Frankenstein’s monster, or we can get back on track to restore New Testament Christianity in all its pure simplicity using the New Testament alone as the blueprint. Until then, we can expect to see more than one “church for all seasons.”

God’s Grace is Enough

Faced with life’s many complex issues, finances, health, relationships, jobs, etc., people look to various sources to find solutions. There are those who are quite content only to complain to garner sympathy. Yet for those who do seek solutions, there is the temptation to find answers in places that are at best, inadequate, and at worst, deceptive: philosophy, humanist psychology, astrology, the occult, etc. There are thousands of books written, and millions of dollars made by those who claim to have the answers and want to share them with us. Their techniques and advice may help, and they may not.

The Apostle Paul had a very serious problem. God had blessed him to see things that few others, if any, had witnessed. 2 Corinthians 12 describes this wondrous event. Yet he states: “lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure,” (verse 7). What exactly the physical problem was (and scholars agree it was a physical issue), he does not tell. We do know that it was given him by a spiritual power, likely God permitting Satan to act against him, and that he staggered under its blows (the word ‘buffet’ means to beat against). It was also given as a proactive, or preventative, medicine to keep him from pride. He prayed to the Lord three times to be delivered from it. To him, not after the first, nor the second, prayer (they were evidently met with silence), God responded. “My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness,” (verse 9a). God did not deliver Paul from the problem, but He did explain why it had to be endured.

I think the Lord’s reply bears scrutiny. Is the Lord not saying, that His own strength (not Paul’s) reaches its full potential in us (“is made perfect”) in weakness—not God’s, but our own? When we are “strong,” flushed with success, perhaps a tad too full of ourselves, brimming with self-importance, overconfident, relying on the “arm of flesh” rather than God to meet daily challenges, God’s power in us is diminished. In short, we become our own worst enemy. We become a closed floodgate, holding back the tide of God’s power He uses to fill us and sustain us.  Sometimes we then wonder why things are as they are, not as we would like them.

Isn’t it past time we truly believed that, no matter what happens in life, God’s grace (unmerited favor) is enough to see us through? During the good and hard times, we must trust Him to know what is best for us, accept what comes, and press on. That does not mean we do not pray for deliverance! It only means that when we do, whatever happens, we are comforted knowing it is God’s way to make us His power-filled, and power-full, servants.

You Can Be Sure

In a conversation with a professed Christian (Protestant) you may hear them say, “I got saved,” “He/She got saved,” or “They got saved.”

When I hear that, I feel compelled to ask them… How can you be sure?

I know if I did they would looked shocked or even stunned.  They would tell me how the person had “asked Jesus into their heart” and affirm how that is the way we “call upon the name of the Lord” to be saved.  They might wonder how I could be much of a Christian and not know that.  (Most, if not all, would never dream of pointing to the time of their baptism, if, in fact, they ever were).

That aside, I would respond, “But, what if, years later, down the road, they stop believing in Christ, begin to live immorally, or even become atheistic or agnostic?  What if they give up living for Jesus and live years and years in the squalor of sin?”

In most cases, their answer would be, “Oh, well, in that case, then they were never saved to begin with.”  Or they would say, “If they backslide so far, the Lord will take their life to prevent them losing their soul.”  (So becoming an immoral, Christ-denying agnostic or atheist can still get you into heaven if you were truly saved?!)

To which I would repeat my question and wait for the “deer in the headlights” look which is certain to come.

The question deserves an answer.  How can anybody really know whether someone is saved or not as to be able to say it without fear of contradiction?  Asserting they were saved, then later denying it if their life turned out badly, is not a recipe for any assurance of salvation… is it?

Following their theology to its logical conclusion, one can never know for sure.

However, I am happy to say that God’s Word does provide information that may allow us to know for certain, with utmost confidence, the very moment we are saved and how to remain so… if we will only appeal to it.

My salvation, or anyone’s, is dependent upon two things, God, and my cooperation with Him in it.  Scripture does not teach the efficacy of a disobedient faith (See John 12:42.  The priests believed on Jesus, but would not confess Him as Christ, which He commands all believers to do, Matthew 10:32, 33).

God’s grace has provided the purchase price for my pardon—the blood of Jesus.  I have the testimony of Jesus, and that of His Apostles, that this is true:

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold!  The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

“For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” (Romans 3:24, 25).

“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood he entereed the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12).

Therefore, I base my conviction of salvation not upon a prayer, much less a feeling, but faith in Jesus and in His promise, having obeyed His commandments of faith, repentance, confession and water baptism (the only one He commands of believers, Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16).

I know the day, hour, minute, and second of my salvation because I will remember that I was “calling on the name of the Lord” when submitting to baptism (Acts 22:16), the final step in the process.

I know that Jesus will save me and see me through this life to the end, if I will remain “faithful unto death” (Revelation 2:10);  if I will “endure” to the end (Matthew 10:22); if I, being “in Christ Jesus” will not “walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:1); if I will “take heed” (Do yourself a favor and read all of these:  Matthew 8:15; 13:5, 9; Luke 8:18; 11:35; 12:15; 17:3; 21:8, 34; Romans 11:21; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:12; Galatians 5:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; Hebrews 3:12; 2 Peter 1:19).

As long as I continue to “hear his voice” (John 10:27); “discipline my body and bring it into subjection” (1 Corinthians 9:27a); “put on the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:11); allow my faith to be “working through love” (Galatians 5:6), I will have no fear of grieving the Spirit of God (Ephesians 4:30), becoming a “castaway” (1 Corinthians 9:27b KJV), having my “lampstand removed from its place” (Revelation 2:5), nor ever be the least concerned that He will “blot out” my “name out of the book of life” (Revelation 3:5).

I take utmost pleasure in passages that tell me God will not lead me into temptation that I am not equipped to handle (1 Corinthians 10:13); that He will “save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him” (Hebrews 7:25); that He will chastise me should I stray (Hebrews 12:5ff), and know He is able to keep me from stumbling (Jude 24).  I can be confident that He will “never leave me nor forsake” me (Hebrews 13:5), and that no one can snatch me out of His Father’s hand (John 10:28, 29).

To summarize, I will trust His promise that He will do for me what He tells me He will do, if I will do for Him what He has told me I must do to be, and remain, His friend:  “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” (John 15:14).

Jesus will not renege on His promises to me if I will not renege on mine to Him.   (See 1 Peter 3:21, where “the answer of a good conscience toward God” is the signing of my lifelong contract to God when I am “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

    ”Baptism is not merely a physical cleansing; it is a spiritual cleansing of the whole heart and soul and life.  Its effect must be on a man’s very soul and on his whole life.
    Peter calls baptism the pledge of a good conscience to God (verse 21).  The word Peter uses for pledge is eperotema.  In every business contract there was a definite question and answer which made the contract binding.  The question was:  “Do you accept the terms of this contract, and bind yourself to observe them?”  And the answer, before witnesses was:  “Yes.”  Without that question and answer the contract was not valid (underline mine, DM).  The technical word for that question and answer clause is eperotema in Greek, stipulatio in Latin.
    Peter is, in effect, saying that in baptism God said to the man coming direct from heathenism:  “Do you accept the terms of my service?  Do you accept its privileges and responsibilities and its demands?”  And in the act of being baptized the man answered, “Yes.”  (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, the Letters of James and Peter, The Westminster Press, pages 244, 245).

That is the basis of my confidence in my salvation, or anyone’s for that matter.  That is why I, or anyone, can say, “I got saved” or “He/She got saved” and never fear for one second that either of us was “never saved to begin with.”

This way, the Bible way, you can be sure of your salvation.

No Greater Love

I was reading a story recently that deeply moved me, and got me to do some serious soul-searching. It brought me closer to Jesus after the reading, and for that I am most grateful.

It was a true account of an episode of aerial combat in World War I written by Eddie Rickenbacker, the leading American air ace of that war. He had just downed a German fighter pilot (they called them ‘Huns’) and saw him parachute to safety. He was envious that they had them. Even by 1918, the Allies did not issue them. The story continued as follows:

“I turned from this extraordinary spectacle in midair to witness another which in all my life at the front I have never seen equaled in horror and awfulness. The picture of it has haunted my dreams during many nights since.

I saw that a general fight was on between the remaining ten Fokkers (German-flown aircraft) and the eight Spads (American-flown aircraft) of 147 Squadron. The Fokker leader had taken on the rear Spad in White’s Formation when White (the formation leader) turned and saw him coming. Like a flash White zoomed up into a half turn, executed a renversement and came back at the Hun leader to protect his pilot from a certain death. White was one of the finest pilots and best air fighters in our group. His pilots loved him and considered him a great leader, which he most certainly was. White’s maneuver occupied but an instant. He came out of his swoop and made a direct plunge for the enemy’s machine, which was just getting in line on the rear Spad’s tail. Without firing a shot the heroic White rammed the Fokker head on while the two machines were approaching each other at the rate of 230 miles per hour!” (Fighter Pilots, edited by Jon E. Lewis)

He then describes the particulars of the massive crash in which both machines were totally destroyed, and added:

“For sheer nerve and bravery I believe this heroic feat was never surpassed. No national honor too great could compensate the family of Lieutenant White for this sacrifice for his comrade pilot and his unparalleled example of heroism to his Squadron. For the most pitiable feature was the fact that this was his last flight over the lines before he was to leave for the United States on a visit to his wife and two small children. Not many pilots enter the service with loved ones so close to them!” (op cit)

I was moved to tears when I read that.  What courage, devotion, and love!  Here was a man who saw his charge, a fellow pilot under his supervision, whom he no doubt knew well, doomed to die within seconds. Surely, without thought of self-preservation, he did the only thing he could do—ram the enemy plane—and die in the process.  He was not a Kamikaze pilot; he did not plan that morning to go out and fly into an enemy plane.  He was a family man, who wanted to live and finish the war to spend his life with them.  He made a split-second decision and paid the ultimate price.

I considered what both White, and his fellow pilot, may have thought.

For White, the images of his wife and children may have flashed before his eyes seconds before the planes collided.  His thoughts may have been on the pilot he purposed to save.  Perhaps it was both.

For the saved pilot, I can only imagine his horror at seeing the two planes crash, knowing his captain was in one of the planes and killed.  What must he have thought as he flew back to base, landed, and spoke to the other pilots in his unit?  I can believe he, and they, wept openly.

I tried to put myself in his place.  How would I have felt?  I think I would have felt an overpowering sense of  humble gratitude.  I would have been in awe of his sacrifice for me—so undeserved. He died for me!!  He should not have, yet he did, and so seamlessly… as if it were only natural that he should! Why should I go on living while he perished, leaving behind a wife and kids? Someone tell me how I can justify my continued existence, how I can make it up to him, to honor his memory?! If I make it home, I will spend the rest of my life to help those he left behind; to support them as best I may. And if his body is buried somewhere, I will place flowers on it as often as I can. Oh, how I owe him—a debt I can never repay!

As I deliberated over that, a verse of Scripture came to mind: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 16:13), and I thought of Jesus.

As grand and wonderful as the story above is, Jesus did even more. Think about it…

The enemy was Satan. We were in his sights. He had us dead to (and by) rights. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sin…” (Ephesians 2:1a). In fact, WE were not acting like His friends at all through our sinful ways, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus died for His enemies too.

Jesus agonized in His dying for us. He was not killed instantly. Before His death He was abandoned by his best friends (for a time, even John fled), beaten half to death (by Roman fist and scourge), mocked, spat on, crowned with thorns, and finally nailed to a slab of wood by men who thoroughly despised Him, to be shamefully exhibited before other men who despised Him even more. What courage, what devotion, what unconditional love on such a monumental scale! There is no comparison anywhere in all the world, in all of history, to the kind of sacrifice Jesus made for every one of us at Calvary!  All others are praiseworthy, noteworthy, to be sure, but nonetheless, less.

By way of His cross, Jesus smashed Satan. He kept me out of perdition’s grasp. He had all His life to think about it, and when the time came, He did it. Without thought for His own safety, His own life, only the drive to please His Father and to save us, He defeated the enemy to grant us the opportunity for eternal life.

In thinking of the story, I could see the cross of Christ more clearly than ever. I am filled with that humble, overpowering, gratitude for His sacrifice, so undeserved! He did not have to die for me! He should not have! But thanks be to God He did!  He may not have taken my bullet, but He did far more—He took my cross.

Now I must take it up and follow Him.

Like the saved pilot whose thoughts I imagined, I ask myself: How may I justify my life, remembering the debt to Him I can never repay? How may I honor Him and keep His memory alive? How may I aid and support the “family” (my fellow Christians foremost) He left behind (for a time) on Earth?

And I know the answer. He gave it to me in one brief statement:  “If you love Me, (you will) keep My commandments“ (John 14:15).

I love Him deeply for what He did for me.

So for the rest of my life, I can—God help me, I will—do that.

Who’s in Charge Here?

One of the sacrifices which must be made for anyone to follow Christ is to surrender one’s life, one’s self, thoroughly and entirely, to God.  It is something that may not be bartered, bargained, short-changed, mediated, nor swapped out for something else… even for a fraction’s, a miniscule’s, a momentary, indulgence in self-service.

Jesus Christ is not in the business of making deals of that sort.

“And He said to them all, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23)

Anyone who has lived life to perfection, who has the inherent, hereditary, right to dispense eternal life, who never once failed God, who faced everything Satan could throw and emerge victoriously unscathed, has the right to make all the demands.  Only Jesus of Nazareth bears those remarkable credentials.

Sadly, and I mean that most sincerely, most people will never, ever, make that sacrifice…

“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

Yet, for those who would, there still remains a hurdle… not insurmountable, but surely one that must be jumped time and time again… that of the superimposed will, the death-grip of the flesh that demands a portion of “equal time.”

To superimpose means to “put, lay, or stack on top of something else” and “to add as a dominant or unassimilated feature” according to Webster.

Too many Christians seem to have a superimposed will.  They will quite go along with much of what Jesus demands, but when there is any intense conflict of desires—theirs and the Lord’s—theirs superimposes itself on Christ’s; perhaps not always, but sometimes.  Even once is too often.

If not, why does any Christian need to be begged to attend worship services regularly?  Or to give as prospered… cheerfully and generously?  Or to pray habitually?  Or to stay awake when the Word is being proclaimed?  Or to love their enemies?  Or any other of countless things which should be as natural to the Christian as they were to Jesus, for which the Christian finds himself, or herself, at odds with what they know to be true of Him?

Ah yes… there is that old stand-by:  “We’re only human; we’re weak!”  That old crutch, which has been the enabler of senseless, ungodly, habits within the heart of a Christian, still comforts, still soothes saints’ consciences back into blissful sleep.  Most of us have not even begun to be persecuted for the name of Christ.  Yet at the first sign of justified criticism regarding substandard sainthood, we whip that one out like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card in a Monopoly game.

The real question we must continually ask ourselves is, “Who’s in charge here?”  Who has the last word… and if it is me, why should it not be, “Yes Lord!  I hear and obey!”?

The work of the Lord will never be accomplished by saints who would superimpose their will on His when circumstances suit them.  If He is not Lord of our all, then He cannot be our Lord at all.

“But why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)

One for All

A recent news story told of an Israeli soldier, kidnapped and held hostage by terrorists, had been exchanged for the release of over 1,000 Arabs convicted of terrorism against Israel.  Since Israel has a long history of not giving in to terrorist demands, the story generated a lot of talk.  Was it worth it?  What about the attitude of those released?  The Israeli government warned them not to go back to their old ways, yet one, at least, proclaimed that he would do so.

I am sure the family of the young Israeli soldier was elated and profoundly grateful to get him back.  The loss of any family member and loved one is tremendously stressful, and their constant worry about his welfare must have been a nightmare.  His parents and loved ones were surely relieved by his safe return.  It may not have been a worthwhile exchange in the minds of many, but, to them, it most definitely was.

When Jesus Christ was facing his death, the High Priest, Caiaphas, made a prophecy “that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50b).  He called it “expedient” for them (John 11:50a), and he apparently did not mean it the way God intended, for it had a much broader application (cf. John 11:52).  Clearly, Jesus died for everyone.

This was God’s purpose.  When John the Baptizer saw Jesus coming toward him, he told his disciples, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  From eternity, Jesus was destined to give His life, not just for those who would be ransomed through His sacrifice (the “many” of Matthew 20:28), but for all people, for all time.  There is no other sacrifice, no other price, which God would accept.

Was it worth it?  From God’s point of view, I often wonder.  Yet He is no doubt like the family of the Israeli soldier who was ransomed.  He loves us all even more than they do him, for He gave His Son to suffer and die for our sins, even while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8).  So I am forced to conclude, from the point of view of a loving parent for his child—it WAS and IS worth it to Him.

Will there be those who will, once redeemed, turn back to their “wallowing in the mire” of sin as the one terrorist vowed to go back to his terrorism (cf.  2 Peter 2:22)?  Of course there will be.  That is what makes the exchange so risky.  Yet God be praised that He was willing to take the risk, to die, one for all, that we might have the opportunity to enjoy eternal fellowship with Him through Christ.

May God help us to keep the sacrifice of Jesus at the forefront of our minds and kept as our most sacred treasure deep within our hearts always, that we may live for Him who died for us all.

Baptism: Salvation’s Point of Reference

It was fascinating when I discovered that nowhere in New Testament Scripture is the subject of (water) baptism a debate of any kind.  Look it over if you do not believe me.  It is always used as a point of reference to salvation.  No one disputed its intention, meaning, and most of all, necessity.  Only since the Protestant Reformation, as various religious leaders sought to debunk the necessity of it in reaction to Roman Catholic doctrine, did any debate ever come about.  The Protestant doctrine of “faith alone” placed baptism as a human work of merit, and therefore not of faith; or, as they like to frame it, “an outward sign of an inward grace.”  It is the “red-haired stepchild” of salvation to most protestants, but it is not God’s stepchild of salvation.

If one is objective and searches the Scriptures, setting aside personal opinions, it is quite plain that baptism plays an integral part of man’s response of faith to the Gospel of Christ.  I speak of the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5; that which Jesus Christ commanded to be done in His name, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16 by those who believe the Gospel, wish to be saved, to become Christians, disciples of Christ, and members of His church, Acts 2:47 (KJV).

In an effort to prove the validity of the assertion that baptism IS necessary for salvation, as it is connected to it in various ways in Scripture, I want to submit a list of things which give incontrovertible proof that it is, and has always been, a point of reference for one’s relationship, or lack thereof, to Jesus Christ.

Baptism is the point of reference to the precise moment a sinner is saved by the obedience of faith to the Gospel of Christ:

Mark 16:15, 16 – “Go and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.  He that does not believe shall be condemned.”

Lest anyone say that Jesus did not include the rejection of baptism as that which condemns, and is therefore not part of salvation, please note that baptism is to be done as a matter of belief, or faith, in Jesus Christ to save.  According to this text, either of them, belief or baptism, standing alone, will not save.  They must be together.  And as baptism IS conjoined to faith in Christ, if one will not believe, they likely would not, and most certainly should not, be baptized.  Furthermore, it is vital to state what Jesus said in the  affirmative:  “He that believes AND IS baptized shall be saved.”  The conjunction “and” forces the issue that both belief and baptism are the necessary prerequisites to salvation.  Those are Jesus’ own words.  To deny the necessity of baptism for salvation is to deny the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The formula He gives is this:

 B + B = S    Belief (Faith) plus Baptism equal Salvation.

To deny baptism’s part in salvation is to create this equation:

B = S – B    Belief (Faith) equals Salvation minus Baptism.

I simply ask doubters, “Which did Jesus say… the former or the latter?”  Unless a person will maintain that we may ignore the direct command of the Savior and be saved anyway, then the honest, open, mind will be convinced that, indeed, baptism is linked inseparably to salvation.  And, to quote our Lord on another occasion:  “…Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate,” Matthew 19:6b.

Then there are those who will argue that this text has been appended by some scribe and is not in all current, nor the oldest, manuscripts.  They will affirm that it is possible, even probable, that Jesus did not say it.  To such persons I submit that, 1) this text IS found in the “Received Text” of the King James Bible, and 2) there is nothing said by Jesus herein that runs counter to what He, and/or His disciples, have stated elsewhere, as I will soon show.   This very accusation shows how deeply entrenched the general animosity some have toward a simple, direct, commandment of Him whom they claim (evidently loosely) as “Lord.”

Baptism is the point of reference when Jesus Christ remits, or forgives, a sinner’s past sins:

Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

R + B = RoS   Repentance plus Baptism equals Remission of Sins

This text comes at the end of Peter’s brave sermon to convince his disbelieving Jewish brethren that Jesus Christ, whom they joined in with the Romans to kill, was their Messiah, the Son of God.  That many of them are convicted of that crime, party to it, and believe his words that Jesus is the Christ and they his killers, they cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Acts 2:37.  Thus their faith, belief, in Jesus’ divinity and Messiah-ship, is expressed in an appeal to make amends for it.  Peter gives them, those who believed his message, the precise means by which their crime and sins can be erased.  Please take note that this was a most opportune time for him to reply to them, “Pray the Lord Jesus into your heart and you shall be saved” or its equivalent.  Unlike most preachers of today, HE DID NOT TELL ANYONE TO DO THAT.  He did not even tell them to “Call upon the name of the Lord, (and you) will be saved,” though he did quote that from Joel, and DOES supply what that meant in his answer to them.

“Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins…”  This requirement, or command, is the direct meaning of what Joel said is “whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  (I will explain more of that in subsequent discussion).  Having believed in Jesus as the Christ, they now must repent of sins and be baptized that their sins may be remitted (forgiven).  Detractors are forced to teach the following:

R – B = RoS    Repentance minus Baptism equals remission of sin.

Again, the question:  Which did Peter say?  If one cares to be honest with Scripture, he must affirm repentance and baptism are, along with faith, absolutely necessary for remission of sins.

It has been taught that the word “unto” in this text means “because of.”  Although the word correctly translated “unto” (EIS) is used in the original language (as it always looks forward, never backward), they insist that it means, in this case, “because of.”  In effect, they make this mean “repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven.”   That such a translation is extremely unwarranted is easily observed by the fact that they had not yet made any appeal to Jesus for forgiveness, even as much as “ask the Lord into their hearts.”  They would have those who cried out, “What shall we do?” having already repented of their sin and crime, and forgiven by Jesus.  In essence:  “Repent because your sins have already been forgiven.”

However, most Bible-believing people correctly affirm that repentance is necessary to have sins forgiven by Christ (Luke 13:3, 5), and that those who refuse to repent will not be forgiven.  Unless someone is willing to affirm that Jesus Christ, as a matter of policy, forgives impenitent sinners, they must conclude that repentance precedes both forgiveness and salvation.  But there are those who will stoop even to inferring that He will forgive the impenitent in their desperate effort to remove baptism from the salvation equation.  Yet the construction of this verse serves only to undermine and destroy their case.  According to Peter, whatever repentance is for, baptism is for, and that is to have sins remitted.  Because of the simple, three-letter co-ordinate conjunction “and” both are forever linked inseparably to forgiveness of sins.  It boils down to a matter of simple grammar.  That word joins things of equal value and, in this case, the two verbs “repent” and “(be) baptized” are linked by it.  Thus, whatever repentance does, baptism does.  If baptism is not for (unto) the remission of sins, then neither is repentance.  But Scripture says otherwise and Scripture is the Word of the Holy Spirit of God.  It will stand for all time.  There is no scholar, however highly esteemed, nor any religious authority, nor any power in the heavenlies, to declare them invalid, and still remain true to the Gospel of Christ.

In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” Peter testified that those who believe the Gospel message, repent of sins and are baptized, are, indeed, calling on His Name, and that He saves them as they do, at the moment of baptism preceded by faith in Christ along with a penitent heart.

Acts 22:16:  “And now, why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Saul the Persecutor was on his way to Damascus to continue his onslaught against the fledgling church of Christ.  It was on that road that he had an eyewitness (albeit brief) encounter with Jesus of Nazareth.  All the elements of salvation and forgiveness of sins through baptism as a point of reference, is involved therein.

The Lord told him to “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told you what you must do,” Acts 9:6b.  The word “must” (DEI) in the original language is one that designates a moral obligation.  Had he not done it, he would have been in willful defiance of an obligation that declared him righteous (if he obeyed and went), or his unrighteousness (if he disobeyed and did not go).  He, therefore, had to go into Damascus to find out what he was to do; his standing before Almighty God depended upon it and he knew it.  There are many who teach this story and handle this text who maintain that Saul was saved then and there; that the rest is merely window-dressing.  The text says otherwise.

That he now believed in a resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, there is no doubt.  He had seen him with his own eyes.  Thus the matter of faith in Christ as being real and divine was settled in his mind.  He remained three days in fasting, Acts 9:9.  We might speculate that, as he refused to eat and drink, he was in a state of repentance and sorrowful remorse over his crimes against Jesus and His people and he was praying (for forgiveness?), Acts 9:11.  He received a vision that showed him a man coming to him to restore his sight, Acts 9:12.  As Saul relates the account in Acts 22, he records the words of Ananias spoken to him, “And now, why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” Acts 22:16.  If Saul were saved on the road to Damascus, prior to his baptism as many claim, then it is clear that he was saved while still in his sins.  Otherwise, Ananias would not have told him that they needed to be washed away.  However, when Ananias confronts him, he is still in a state of sinfulness.  Neither his faith, nor his repentance (I will assume that), apart from baptism, were able to relieve him of the guilt of his sins.  His prayers succeeded only by bringing him God’s aid in the form of Ananias who then baptized him and healed his blindness.  Saul, who later became the great Apostle Paul, could, and did, use his baptism as a point of reference for the precise moment that he had his sins forgiven by Jesus Christ.

We see again that “calling on the name of the Lord” is the appeal of the sinner to be saved, leaving God the means whereby it is to be done.  In this, and in all cases, it is through a penitent, trusting, obedient response to the Gospel of Christ, in which baptism is the crowning act.

1 Peter 3:20, 21 - “who formerly were disobedient, when once the Diving longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.  There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of filth from the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Peter affirms here that baptism “saves us.”  It is neither ethical nor reasonable to try to explain this away by making Peter mean something different than what he has clearly stated.  Water baptism is in view as verse twenty shows (“saved through water”).  Peter explains that the water involved has no direct power in itself to remit sins, but through it, those immersed express their faith in God to save them as they submit to it.   This fortifies the point that both faith and baptism are vital to salvation.  Never is saving faith in God more evident than in the obedience to God’s Will in our baptism.

Baptism is the point of reference when God places a person “into Christ” and, at the same time, the person “puts on” Christ.

Galatians 3:26, 27 - “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Notice what Paul says.  Faith in Christ is that which makes a person a “son of God.”  He claims what makes that faith evident, and the subsequent standing as a son of God, is epitomized in baptism.  Baptism is the visible proof of faith in Christ, not merely an “outward sign of an inward grace.”

It is never intimated anywhere in Scripture that faith, nor anything else except baptism, puts one “into Christ.”  That phrase is filled with meaning.  Being put “into Christ” is to become a member of the body of Christ by being placed by God within the body of Christ (which is the church of Christ, Colossians 1:13, 18).  Christ is the Center of salvation, forgiveness of sins, and citizenship within the Kingdom of Heaven.  To be put “into Christ,” therefore, is to obtain all of that and more.  Conversely, failure to be baptized means a person is not put “into Christ” and thus is unable to obtain those great blessings.  It is simply the other side of the coin.  Furthermore, it is through baptism that a person has “put on” Christ.  In this context, Christ is used metaphorically as a garment, sin-stain-free, and spotless except for those His own blood has made upon it.  In wearing Christ as a garment, the baptized believer has obtained the robe that permits him or her to attend the wedding feast, Matthew 22:11-14, or to stand before the Lamb in robes of righteousness, Revelation 7:13-17.  The garment should remind those who wear them that it is Jesus, alone, who purchased their pardon with his own blood, and that they should live in holiness and righteousness in honor of Him.

Baptism is the point of reference when a sinner dies to sin and begins a new life in Christ.

Romans 6:4 – “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

I have underlined phrases that are central to the point.  Note that only in baptism does the Holy Spirit specify that we are buried and raised with Christ.  That concept, while it obscure and pointless to many, is filled with meaning.  Baptism’s significance is due, in part, to its symbolism as the point in time when a believer becomes united with Christ in His death, and then is raised by the power of God, as was Christ, to rise and walk “in newness of life.”  The sinner also “dies” (to sin’s dominating influence and its burdensome guilt) and is, like Christ, raised up to live a new life in Christ.  In no other way does this take place—not in repentance, confession, nor agreement with the facts of the Gospel (which some call faith).  Coming up out of the watery grave of baptism, we may rejoice that we died to sin and live a new life in Christ.

Baptism is the point of reference when a sinner is born again of water and the Spirit.

John 3:3, 5, 6 - “Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

When Nicodemus approached Jesus, whom he obviously admired and trusted, Jesus told him that one “must be born again.”  Nicodemus, like many today, incorrectly assumed that Jesus was talking about the natural, physical, birth process.
Sadly, the naysayers have erroneously concluded that the “water” part of the process is nothing more than amniotic fluid (the material babies are encased within prior to birth).  Jesus makes it clear that He is not talking about physical birth when He explained, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,’ that is, they are two separate, distinct, things not to be confused.  Physical birth has nothing whatsoever to do with being “born again” or being “born anew” or “from above.”  Spiritual birth assumes a pre-existing physical birth, so it as a qualification for the second birth is pointless and ludicrous.  Besides, Jesus had just corrected Nicodemus’ misunderstanding that he was speaking of the first, physical, birth.  Why would He correct him and then tell him it DID involve a physical birth after all?  If that were not enough to clinch the case, once again there appears the coordinate conjunction “and” in the text.  It is a single birth, “of water and the Spirit.”  Therefore, the co-equal components of that single birth are “water” and “the Spirit.”  Both elements, “water” and “the Spirit” are affirmed in Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”  When penitent, confessing, believing, sinners are baptized in water, God grants them the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit thenceforth acts in the life of Christians to sanctify them (that is, to bring them closer to the image of Christ Jesus).  That occurs when they cooperate with the Spirit by learning God’s Will in the Scriptures and put what they learn into the practice of righteousness and holiness in life.  Being daily renewed in mind (see Romans 12:1, 2) they live anew in the power of God.  Truly, then, they will have been “born of water and the Spirit.”   Baptism, therefore, is that point of reference for that new birth, the new walk with God in Christ.

Baptism is the point of reference in which we fulfill the righteousness of God regarding our salvation.

Matthew 3:15 – “But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’  Then he allowed Him.”

Of all people on earth the ONE person who did not require remission of sins was Jesus of Nazareth.  That was why John the baptizer was so puzzled when Jesus came to him to be baptized.  God had sent him to baptize so that he might be able to identify the Christ (see John 1:33).  As John’s baptism was “of repentance for the remission of sins,” Luke 3:3, John had rightly assessed that Jesus had no personal need of it.   Jesus, however, corrected him.  In His rebuttal, Jesus made the point that John’s baptism was not merely what it appeared to be, or even what God had told him it was for.  It was necessary to honor God and to put one in a stance of righteousness before God.  The word, “fitting” in the original language implies doing what is proper and right by nature.  Through John’s preaching, God had insisted that the Israelites, His people, repent and be baptized.  Jesus was an Israelite, a Jew, and fell naturally under that obligation.  Had he not done so, there would have been several ramifications of his refusal.  When John the baptizer accused the Jewish religious hierarchy of disbelief in his work being of God, the Holy Spirit through Luke records, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him,” Luke 7:30.  The direct result of their refusal to be baptized was that they “rejected the counsel of God against themselves.”  Jesus could never, and would never, reject His Father’s counsel like they did (and others today unwittingly do and proclaim when they disavow the necessity of baptism).   Furthermore, by His disobedience, He would have set the precedent that rejection of God’s Will is something certain kinds of people, or those in special circumstances, are at liberty to do.  Jesus clearly rejected that notion.  Finally, He would have left unfulfilled the Word of the Father to John, as it was God the Father’s will that Jesus be baptized to prove to John who He was.  Jesus knew that His baptism was vital to His ministry and life.  Consider also it was after Jesus’ baptism, not before it, that 1) the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and, 2) God the Father’s voice proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” Matthew 3:16, 17.  The Father would not have been pleased with Jesus, nor would the Spirit descended upon Him as a consequence, had He dismissed baptism as being personally unnecessary.  Thus it cannot be said that Jesus’ baptism was, in all points, unnecessary.  If it was needful for Him, then it is also for us.  Can we, unlike Jesus, do without it?

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to talk to a lady who had an argument with others of her denomination that baptism was necessary for salvation.  They said it was not.  She disagreed.  She had no formal Bible education, just a lot of “horse sense” when it came to Scripture.  She correctly rebuked them by saying something like, “If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for us.”  I salute her reasoning and echo it.  It is Biblically sound.

Conclusion

Failure to be baptized is failing to fulfill the will of God, and a disobedient faith is no faith at all.  The power to save in baptism is not vested in the act itself, but in the obedience to God which all faith requires.  Neither the baptism of John, nor the baptism Jesus commands under the New Covenant, is an act of merit, or work of the flesh devised by man, (see Matthew 21:25, 26).  Hence it has nothing at all to do with “salvation by works.”   Make no mistake:  it is God’s commandment that we must obey if we want Him to validate our faith in Christ.

Satan will do anything to keep believers in God out of the water of baptism.  He knows when they do it by faith and in penitence of heart, God has promised to save them.  He does not want that to happen!  Paul warns that Satan has the power to transform himself into an “angel of Light,” 2 Corinthians 11:14.   While not being actually Satan or possessed by him, all religious leaders cannot be trusted to be perfectly honest in this, nor any other, religious matter.   If their minds and hearts are not listening to the Word, Satan can, and will, deceive them, no matter how sincere they may be.

In view of that, it should be no surprise to anyone that the majority of religious  leaders today who claim Christ argue vehemently against the absolute need for baptism in salvation.  They will continue to teach, preach, write books and articles maintaining that water baptism has nothing to do with a sinner’s salvation.  Too much is risked being lost for most of them to admit their mistake:  credibility, disciples, a livelihood, a job, not to mention, face.  Some, hopefully, will consider this, study it, realize, and admit their mistake.  It is for those whose honest hearts are still seeking God’s face and listening to His Word with an unprejudiced mind, that I present this in love for consideration.   May God always bless our continued scrutiny of His Holy Word.

Addendum

What about the thief on the cross?

When the subject of the necessity of baptism comes up, someone will inevitably point to the thief on the cross, whom they will confidently assert was saved without baptism.  The claim is utterly without foundation, for, during the time of John’s baptism, it is written that “all the people were being baptized…” and, “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to Him, and were baptized by him, in the Jordan, confessing their sins,” Luke 3:21a; Matthew 3:5, 6.  That he was not baptized is only speculation.  But even if he was not, it does not matter at all.  While on earth, our Lord forgave sins freely, even without evidence of faith, or baptism, by the one forgiven (see Luke 5:20).  Jesus lived and died under the Old Covenant—the New was not yet in force because the Testator, Jesus, was still alive (see Hebrews 8:6-13; 9:11-17).  Only after Jesus had died, was buried and resurrected, did He give the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20.  That provides the framework of the New Covenant’s (Christ’s) law of pardon and induction into the church (see Acts 2:36-47).  That directive required all those who would be His disciples submit first to water baptism.

What if a believer dies before being baptized?

That complaint is often raised by well-intentioned people who have created a scenario that would put people out of reach of being saved, who would have been otherwise, but perished before reaching the baptistry, or water source.  I may be mistaken, but that very reasoning helped lead to sprinkling and pouring to be used instead of immersion.  One error led inevitably to others.

First of all, I have never, ever, heard of that happening.  I have had to help baptize people who died from cancer within weeks of it.  I have baptized someone in a folding chair because he was too weak to stand up.  Never have I taken a confession of faith in Christ, nor heard of it happening even one time, and the candidate fell dead before reaching the baptistry.   Have you?

To those who take comfort in this question as being logical, let me ask you a similar question:  What if they die before they confess Christ, or “ask Him into their heart” but are on their way to doing it?  Suppose there is a person who hears the Word and the Seed lands on good “heart” soil?  Suppose as they begin to realize the enormity of their sins before God, and step out to the mourner’s bench to confess their sins and, as it is commonly taught, say the “sinner’s prayer,” they collapse dead in the aisle.  What about them?  Would you not agree with me that God is our Judge and He will consider the heart before making a decision on our fate?  I am quite content to let God judge cases of “death-before-baptism.”  However, I am not content to set aside the need for baptism by those who have an axe to grind against it by dredging up a bizarre and incredible scenario which is so remote as to be nonsensical.

I am also confident that if a person would be saved, God will see them through it to the end of the course, if they will but hear and obey His Gospel.  “The Lord is… longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance,” 2 Peter 3:9.   The Lord will see you to the baptistry if you don’t wait too long.  Immediately is the way of the New Testament (see examples in Acts).  One or more weeks is too long, but then it will always be postponed by those who do not see its necessity.

Was not Abraham justified by faith alone and declared righteous by God?  So why are we not?

This question fails primarily because the definition of faith implied is incorrect.  Abraham did believe God, and it was counted for righteousness, but when?  The questioner assumes it means the second he heard it.  The writer of Hebrews maintains it was when he acted out of the obedience of faith, “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance.  And he went out, not knowing where he was going,” Hebrews 11:8.  Abraham’s faith included obedience and because he “went out” his faith was made complete.  In all instances of Abraham’s life, save for a serious omission he told a foreign king to protect himself, he acted out his faith and it was accounted for righteousness.  He left his country and kin; he offered his son Isaac in sacrifice (though, of course, God did not allow him to carry through with it); he took God at His word when He promised him an inheritance and descendants.  Yet in every case, Abraham did what faith always does—follow through with what is required.  In our situation, our own faith is accounted for righteousness when we follow through what God requires of us, and that includes confessing Christ, repentance, and water baptism.  I merely echo what James says in James 2:22:  “You see that his (Abraham’s) faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.” (NIV)

What about where Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:17, says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…”  If baptism were so important, why did Paul himself not do more of it?

To that question I ask, “Was Paul not under the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus said, ‘Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…’?”  Of course he was.  Did Paul not baptize some believers?  Yes he did, as he lists some of them in 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16.  Most of what is written concerning baptism, he himself wrote.  Why then did he not baptize more people himself?  It is a valid question, but not difficult to answer.

He gives the reason in 1 Corinthians 1:14, “…lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.”  His reason for not baptizing more people personally was likely much the same as was Jesus Christ’s—he did not want people to use baptism, specifically the one who baptized them, to be a way for Satan to tempt them into being filled with pride, which is exactly what appears to have been the case with some of the Corinthians.

In fact, the very situation which those who decry baptism’s necessity, by using this passage, proves how important baptism really is and was to New Testament believers.  In this context, Paul is reproving the Corinthians because they were becoming factionalized, and he is deeply concerned that they will use the one who had baptized them as a means to further their sinful ambitions.  Thus, if baptism were not vitally important to them—a means to attain some special prominence if baptized by Paul, why would Paul have any concern about it?  If baptism were not important anyway, who would have cared who baptized them?

Furthermore, if we examine this more carefully, we may ask, “Was there anyone to whom Paul referred when he said, “Christ did not send me to baptize?”  Was there someone who WAS sent specifically to baptize?  The answer is yes.  God sent John the baptizer to do that very thing, John 1:33.  God sent John to baptize, whereas He sent Paul to preach the gospel.  Paul did not want the factionalized Christians at Corinth to misunderstand:  he was not sent to baptize, as was John, but to preach.  That is his primary point.

Do not read more into this than what is written!  Paul seldom traveled alone, if at all.  Attending him were men like Timothy, Luke, Silas, Barnabas, and others.  Just because Paul did not do a lot of the baptizing, does not mean it was not being done!  It certainly is no argument that it was not necessary.

God nowhere authorizes a certain person to do the baptizing, least of all an apostle.  As long as the one being baptized knows what it is for and trusts Jesus to save him when doing it, there should be no worry that it could not be done.  I would even go as far as to say that, in some bizarre and extreme case, a person might even baptize himself.

But let’s look at this more closely.  In his efforts to dissuade them from pursuing a course of ambitious pride, Paul raises several rhetorical questions:  “Is Christ divided?”  “Was Paul crucified for you?”  “Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”  Each of these is critically important to the foundation of what makes one a Christian—Christ, Christ’s crucifixion, and, according to Paul, baptism!  Look at it again.  Paul asks three questions that, to him anyway, form the line of demarcation between the saved and the unsaved—Christ (as the Lord who unites us, not divides us); Christ’s crucifixion (not Paul’s of course, through which we have forgiveness of sins and redemption), and baptism (in which we fulfill the obedience of faith to Christ’s gospel and are therefore, saved).  If baptism is not important, why then did Paul mention it with those other two grand bulwarks of Christendom?

Those who cite this passage only damage their own case further, as they open themselves up to contradictory points of reasoning of which they likely have never remotely considered, due to blind prejudice.  In desiring a “proof text” for their position, they wind up actually reinforcing the validity of that for which they have taken such great pains to denounce and debunk—the vital necessity of baptism.

(Additional objections and other material may be added to this as time in study and circumstances warrant)

The Best Defense

Attack the attacker.  It is a very ancient military tactic.  General George Patton believed in a continuous offense to keep the enemy guessing and off his game.  It worked for him, mostly, and works generally.  When one is so preoccupied with damage control, of where and when his opponent will strike next and with what force, he has very little time to complete his own agenda.  At the very least, it ties up valuable resources that can be used for other, more important, things.

That is the modus operandi of the more rabid elements of the homosexual community.  They fairly destroyed the career of Anita Byrant, who took a strong stand against homosexual behavior in the late 1970s.  They are working to that end even now.  Anyone whose voice is raised above the usual din proclaiming opposition to that lifestyle gets “the treatment.”  It is all the more amazing that those who scream “tolerance” of their lifestyle, are the most intolerant of anyone who dares publicly oppose or reject their behavior.  It is flagrant, shameless, hypocrisy at its worst.

It will fail.  Despite the laws threatening “hate speech” penalties; the current “conditioning” of the military to accept it as a lifestyle; the infusion of written materials into public schools, seeking to normalize it in the minds of young people, and the hordes of Hollywood celebrities and Washington lawmakers professing it and demanding it be accepted and acceptable, there remains many who will never, ever, see it anything except sexual deviancy and perversion.

And they will be right to do so.

In the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, God outlined a number of things which He expected His people to do or not do.  A great many of those things should be categorized as pertaining to religious customs, rites, ceremonies, and the like some of which formed the type-antitype of Christ and Christian worship today.  There were animal sacrifices, a separate priesthood, worship activities, actions which made one “clean” or “unclean” and so forth.  It does not take a genius or Rabbi to figure out which ones formed the basis of God’s inherent moral nature, and which were meant only for a time period which may be called the Mosaic Age.  In the ones most pervasively forbidden, God labeled them as an “abomination.”  Homosexual practices is one of them.

The prohibition against homosexual behavior is His eternal moral judgment on the subject:  “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination… Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.  For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” Leviticus 18:22a, 24.  The sin of homosexuality God spoke of was not that which His people were engaging in—they weren’t yet— but that of the Canaanites’.  So His initial concern was not the behavior of the Israelites (a bodily defilement or disfigurement that made them ceremonially unfit to present themselves in worship to Him) but the behavior of the pagan nations that might influence His people to do what they were doing.  The nature of the sin was such that the land itself would “vomit” them out.

Do I need to even mention what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?

God has made it abundantly clear through Jesus Christ what are the limits of human sexual proclivities:  “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” Matthew 19:4-6.  Jesus stated God’s full intent for human sexual relations:  one man (male) and one wife (female).  The writer of Hebrews confirms this:  “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” Hebrews 13:4.  Paul stated God’s aversion to homosexuality more sharply:  “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” Romans 1:26, 27.

Defenders of homosexual behavior do their utmost to blunt the force of these Scriptures.  Their points are varied and will not be detailed at this time.  (I suggest they reread the aforementioned texts carefully and with an open mind)  My main point herein is to prepare us for the method of attack they, and others, will use when all else fails:  attack the attacker.  Not only that, but they will be as crude, ruthless, brutal, and utterly vile in tone as can be to serve as an additional shock effect that will stun and frighten the faint of heart into silence.  It worked for Ernst Roehm’s (himself a homosexual) Nazi Storm Troopers (SA) in the 1930s as they prided themselves on beating up and intimidating the opposition whenever and wherever it showed up at Nazi lectures and rallies.

That opposition to homosexual behavior in this, or similar articles by Christian-thinking people, is “hate speech” may be easily dispelled.  If a Christian, like myself, truly believes God will punish fornication (which is what homosexual behavior is), then, if he or she truly hated homosexuals, silence would be the ticket.   Hating them would mean that we give no warning, keep quiet, and simply wait for God’s wrath to consume them, delighting when it did.  In other words, ridicule and demean those who suffer from AIDS and like infirmities as a result of homosexual behavior, and really cheer when the hammer of God’s judgment falls.  If that is what we are doing or tempted to do, let us repent of it!  For whatever that is, I can say confidently that it is NOT the spirit of Christ!  Hating, mocking, and ridiculing the enemy is THEIR game, not ours.  Delighting in the anguish and torments of others is devilish.

Speaking a word of warning to them, trying to convince them of their error, shows clearly that there is no hate involved, but love which tells the sinner to repent before it is too late.  God through Christ has taught us to love those whom we disagree with, who offend God’s law, and even nature through their behavior, however seemingly benign.  If there is any attack to be made, it is to help in the long run.  Emotional distress is a small price to pay to avert greater distress.  Such is the spirit of this blog—speaking the truth in love.

It is, therefore, wrong to remain silent on an issue of this magnitude.  Souls and the very well-being of our nation are at stake.  Being attacked, maligned, slandered, and ill-treated is a small thing.  It is to be expected, and it should be welcomed.  “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” Matthew 5:10-12.  “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you” (Jesus) John 15:18.

Just remember:  when we are savaged for righteousness’ sake, we are in the best of company.

Playing God

It was bound to happen.  Once the notion became prevalent among the established “intelligent” elite (and their willing atheistic minions) that human babies are not actually human beings, the path to using human embryos for scientific research lay wide open.  The next few steps came easy.  Now we are seeing work on things such as an “animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.”

No, sadly, this is not fantasy-horror literature from the imagination of Edgar Allen Poe, H. G. Wells, or, more like, H. P. Lovecraft.  It is news in the Daily Mail Online.  150 to 155 human-animal hybrids have thus far been created in labs at three English facilities:  King’s College in London, Newcastle University and Warwick University.

“Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.”  (op cit.)

While some scientists and politicians decried their work, those involved naturally defended their efforts claiming it was for beneficial purposes:  to create stem cells to help find cures for a myriad of hitherto incurable diseases.  A lead scientist remarked, “The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research.” (op cit.)

In their eyes, “the ends justifies the means.”  They share the same philosophy as did the Nazi scientists in the 1930s and 1940s who operated on living humans whom they dubbed “subhuman,” or, not quite human.  Once that shoe falls, look out.

According to the article, present law requires that the embryos be destroyed within 14 days.  Yet there were warnings that this is taking place in countries where there are no laws to limit the work, and they are many.

In the Old Testament, God forbade His people to allow different kinds of animals to interbreed.  “You shall keep My statutes.  You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind”  Leviticus 19:19.  Of course, many of those laws were intended for the Israelites only, were ritual in nature, and confined to His people who lived under the Law of Moses.  Such may very well be the nature of that commandment.  However, whether currently applicable or not, it serves to illustrate God’s desire to keep some things as they are.   He gave man no leave to experiment with the design of His creation.  Beyond that, there are some things naturally repulsive—inherently wrong and wrong-headed:  abortion, genocide, murder, stealing, and this—mixing human genetic material with that of animals.  Even agnostic or godless politicians agree it goes too far.

It is evident when mankind as a whole starts down the path of relegating life to the irrelevent, the sky is the limit.  The hole in the dike has become a fissure, and the breach widens year by year.  Humans playing God is getting more popular all the time.

Sooner or later, as godless governments and lawless politicians lax restrictions, this kind of research will be funded by taxes—our taxes.  We will be drawn into it whether we like it or not.  It is bad enough that it is happening at all; it adds insult to injury that we will be footing the bill for something so staggeringly reprehensible.

Such will be the case if we do not stop stubbornly promoting, supporting, defending, and voting for progressive, liberal, left- or right- wing agnostic, atheistic, anti-Christ politicians, regardless of party affiliation.  Insanity such as this will become the norm within a generation or two, or maybe less.  By that time, it will be too late to cry foul and go back to “the way it was.”  The Old Guard will have died out, and the new, young, voices of libertine “reason” will carry the day.  Jesus will have to step in to put things right, if any reversal of attitude and mindset is to be seen.  Maybe He is already at work doing that now.  After all, the world IS His (Matthew 28:18; 1 Timothy 6:15) and He will brook no rivals.

We must stop sleeping, dreaming, wishing and hoping while doing little or nothing to protect and promote reasonable, Christian, principles.  The wolf is already in the pen, and the sheep are being slaughtered.  The future of our children and grand-children is being shaped by (though not in the hands of) secular humanists, while a great many of us seem to be distraught only about news of the faltering economy, the price of gasoline, Social Security checks, etc.

May God open our eyes to our peril and give us the fortitude to do all we can, within Christian liberty, to keep informed, and to stand up for what is right, before it is too late for us to do anything about it.