The Truth So Called Christians Will Not Accept



Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2008

by

Most people who call themselves Christians are in reality not Christians at all no matter how dedicated they may be to their faith. The word of God is truth (Jesus speaking, John 17:17 ) and stands as the one and only standard that is acceptable to the God of heaven and of men. It, not man, sets the standard for who is a Christian.

As there is a political correctness in our land there is likewise a religious correctness that one must adhere to unless he is willing to be branded a heretic, ostracized, ridiculed, and persecuted. Man has set his own standard as regards who is a Christian and who is not and it is religiously incorrect to dispute the accepted standard.

A sort of political correctness in religion is nothing new. It existed in the days of Jesus and was something he had to fight against daily. As far as this world is concerned he finally lost the battle as it put him on the cross. It is pretty certain the same (persecution to the death) can be said of Paul and Peter.

Paul said of that generation, "they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God." ( Rom. 10:2-3 NKJV) The same could be said of our own generation. The zeal is there but not the truth.

What did God do with the generation of which Paul spoke? They were destroyed in 70 A. D. when the Roman army took Jerusalem with massive loss of life. The Bible says that when Jesus drew near to Jerusalem , "He saw the city and wept over it, saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.'" (Luke 19:41-44 NKJV)

So, the question arises, answered by the quote from Jesus above, does great zeal for God overcome a lack of knowledge of God's will, is zeal greater than truth? To ask is to answer.

But, a point to be emphasized in addition to that is this. That generation was sure that they had God's will and were practicing it. In their mind there was absolutely no doubt about that. Those who disputed them found themselves in trouble. It is the same in our day and I am about to find myself in trouble with my own generation who read this piece.

While there are many so called Christian religious denominations in America hardly a one has a membership of people who are in fact Christians, not according to God's word. A Christian is a person who is in Christ, not one who thinks he is. Here is what God has said about the matter from his own word.

Salvation is found in Christ. Paul said he endured "all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV) A teacher might say to a Bible class "raise your hand if you believe salvation is found outside Christ." Would you raise your hand or would you accept what Paul said about it? Paul said salvation is "in Christ."

Well, how does one enter Christ? Paul says elsewhere, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26 NKJV) He does not say "as many of you who have believed in Christ have put on Christ" as many wish he had said. Do you take Paul at his word? Do you believe one is baptized into Christ or will you argue with an apostle?

Paul says the same thing elsewhere, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" ( Rom. 6:3 NKJV) He did not have a slip of the tongue. That was what he taught whether writing to the Galatians or Romans or whomever. He taught the same things wherever he went or to whomever he wrote.

In 1 Cor. 12:13 he says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ". (NKJV) What body do you think Paul was talking about? The body of Christ, the church. Jesus is "head over all things to the church, which is His body." (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV)

Surely, no one thinks we are baptized into Christ's physical body. We are baptized into his spiritual body. It is the spirit that will be saved. God is spirit. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 15:50 NKJV) To be in Christ is to be in him in spirit. The church is a spiritual body.

"Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) Whose body? His! How do you get into that body? Paul says we are baptized into it. Can you sneak into it? Can you believe into it? Will your zeal put you into it? Does God's word on the subject make any difference?

One is either in the body of which Jesus is the Savior or he is outside it. Again, there is no being in between. You are either in or you are out. You cannot join his spiritual body. Paul did not say go out and join God's spiritual body. He said to be baptized into it. No baptism then no being in the body of Christ. Case closed. You cannot join Christ's body, you are baptized into it.

What does this mean then as far as what is considered to be religiously correct in the denominational world? Does it not mean that what is considered to be religiously correct is in fact error? Yes, it does.

Does it not mean that those teaching salvation by faith apart from baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), teaching that baptism is not essential to salvation, are actually teaching that it makes no difference whether one is in Christ or is outside him, makes no difference whether one is a part of his body or not? Yes, it does. Denominational doctrine comforts those who have not been baptized just as long as they believe.

What is wrong here, aside from a blatant contradiction of scripture and the establishment of a religion unknown to the Bible, is a total misunderstanding of what faith as taught in the New Testament is. Yes, most certainly the Bible teaches man is saved by faith in place after place but one must understand what biblical faith is and what it encompasses. Faith means you believe what the Bible says, for starters, about any and every subject of which it speaks.

I have long said that the very thing those who teach that one is saved by faith alone need is "more faith". Faith in God's word, faith that he was able to say what he meant and mean what he said, faith that when Peter told the people at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost that baptism was "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) that he was not lying, faith that he had not lost his senses, faith that he was not deluded, faith that he said exactly what he meant to say, faith that he spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, faith that when Ananias told Saul "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16 NKJV) he knew that Saul still had sins to be forgiven, that he was not cleansed of sin on the road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him and faith was born. But, that is the very thing faith only advocates cannot accept which basically means almost the entire denominational world. There is no place in their pulpits for one who preaches what Peter or Ananias preached. Peter and Ananias would be kicked out of today's denominational churches.

Now does all of this mean a man can just go out and be immersed without faith or repentance and be saved? Not at all. The Bible does not teach any such thing. Faith and repentance are prerequisites to acceptable baptism. Baptism is not just something one does blindly without forethought and understanding, without knowledge. Without faith and repentance baptism is meaningless.

Let us take it a step further. One cannot be taught wrong, believe what he was taught, and then go through what a denomination calls baptism and then say he was baptized scripturally. He got wet but he was not baptized any more than a diver jumping off a diving board. One cannot accidentally obey God. Understanding, motivation, the heart are all involved in acceptable obedience. Paul said the Romans "obeyed from the heart" (Rom. 6:17 NKJV) which is the only way one can obey God.

One cannot believe error, get wet, and be saved. Almost all denominational bodies with hardly an exception teach that baptism either symbolizes a salvation one already has obtained before his baptism or else it is necessary not to enter the universal church but to enter the local congregation or denominational church. The idea is that you are already saved but to become a member here we require baptism.

So here you come to be baptized by one of these groups. If you accept their teaching you disbelieve the Bible lacking faith in what it has taught? Can you be saved in that kind of state of unbelief? Can you be saved while rejecting the truth? What does baptism mean if you have rejected what the bible says about it? It means nothing other than you got wet and pleased men?

If you say well I know what they are teaching but I do not believe it. My baptism will be for the remission of sins. It will be to get into Christ. Will that work? No! Why not? Because you are a liar and deceiver before men. They will not likely baptize you if you tell them your real beliefs so you will just hide it from them and whatever pronouncements they say during the baptismal ceremony you will act as though you accept them. You are going to play the role of the hypocrite while obeying the gospel. You cannot acceptably obey the gospel while acting the role of a deceiver and liar.

Thus here are your choices with denominational baptism - you either accept their false teaching about it and reject what the Bible has said about it or else you play the hypocrite while getting wet. In either case you do wrong. Denominational baptism is of no value.

Well, what do you do? Does it make a difference who baptizes you? No, not as long as you make it clear to them what you are doing and why and thus eliminate playing the hypocrite, deceiver, and liar. One need not be baptized by a preacher in a formal setting. There was not much of a formal setting when Philip baptized the eunuch in Acts 8. As far as I can recall there was not a single occasion in the book of Acts were one was baptized in a formal church service setting.

Or, you can find a congregation of people who believe what the Bible teaches on the subject and gain their assistance in being baptized. Find a church of Christ in your area, one that still believes and practices the truth on the subject which is most but not all of them.

Where does this leave us then, I should say leave me? It leaves me a hated man, one who is considered intolerant, deceived, a hater himself, a judge of men, one men loath and feel sorry for all at the same time. And, yet, I am the one who has said he believes what Paul the apostle taught. Those who are in opposition say it does not matter what Paul said, it was what he meant that counts, and they proceed to tell you the inventions of their own mind as to the real meaning of his words for the Holy Spirit was not able to speak in words that could be taken at face value.

Yes, the religiously correct equivalent of political correctness lives today. It says all men, no matter what their practice, are saved today by faith alone or put another way without baptism. It makes absolutely no difference what group you are a member of as long as it is considered a Christian group and you claim to believe in Jesus. The man who is lost is the one who says it is not so.

Yes, there is still today, as there was way back when, a zeal for God but it is not according to knowledge. It is, however, religiously correct according to our times.

Sadly, there are not a lot of Christians, not many at all, in what the world calls Christianity today - not unless one can be outside Christ and still be a Christian.

All of Denny's articles, over 150, can be found on his web site DennySmith.Net.
This Article has been viewed 133 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by Terry Mitchell
 3 years 77 days ago.
88 fans.
Denny, why then did Paul and Silas not give that jailer the whole story when he asked them what he must do to be saved? They responded as follows:
 
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 KJV)
 
I guess with all the excitement of the earthquake and everything, they must have just forgotten, hunh? I'm sure they can be forgiven for that.
 
But what about John 3:16? Did something get lost in the translation?
 
And did the thief on the cross who sided with Jesus go to hell? Or was he taken down off the cross before he died, baptized, and then hung back up there to finish dying?
 
And what about that crippled guy that had his four friends let him how down through a hole in the roof so Jesus could heal him? Do you remember what Jesus told him? I believe Jesus told him, "thy sins be forgiven thee." And guess what -- there was no water in sight!
 
And what about the following words from Paul:
 
"that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:9-10 KJV)
 
Did he forget again? Although I don't recall an earthquake occurring that particular time.
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 77 days ago.
14 fans.
Terry, sorry I did not get a chance to respond earlier as I was having basset hound problems and had an electrician in.  Oh, well.  Here goes.
 
The problem with salvation at the point of faith is that it utterly rejects everything the bible has to say about baptism.
 
(1) Jesus commanded baptism but faith only says "so what."  (see Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:16)
 
(2)  Jesus said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)  Denominationalism says there is no water involved and so know more about it than even Jesus.
 
(3)  Jesus said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" Mark 16:16) but faith only says "He who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved."
 
(4)  The Holy Spirit speaking through Peter said "repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).  Denominationalism says "Peter, Holy Spirit or not, you do not know what you are talking about.  These people were already saved and had their sins forgiven when they believed."
 
(5) Philip preached baptism in Samaria, "when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God (the one Jesus said one could not enter unless he was born of water and the Spirit - DS)  and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (Act 8:12)  Denominationalism says what need is there to preach it?  You can preach the gospel without it.  Philip could not but they can.
 
(6) When Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch the very first response he uttered was "Look!  Water!  What prevents me from being baptized." (Acts 8:36)  Yet, all the text says (verse 35) is that Philip "preached Jesus to him."  Denominationalism says you need not preach baptism when you preach Jesus.  Better reread this conversion account.  Philip would disagree with you.
 
(7) Ananias told Paul "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16)  Denominationalism knows more about it than Ananias for it says he did not have any to be washed away since he was saved at the point of faith.  (see also Acts 9:18)
 
(8) Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized (Acts 10:48).  Denominationalism says we will have none of that here, no commanding people to be baptized.
 
(9) The Bible says the Lord opened Lydia's heart "to respond to the things spoken by Paul.  And when she and her household had been baptized." (Acts 16:14-15)  Do you think Paul preached baptism and that in his very first sermon, if you will, at Philippi?  Do you think he did?  Why?  Denominationalism says it is not necessary.
 
(10) The Philippian jailer was told to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).  Paul and Silas then "spoke the word of the Lord to him" (Acts 16:32) and the text then says "immediately he was baptized." (Acts 16:33)  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Evidently, it means you believe what he says and he said "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)  Denominationalism says the jailer could have skipped baptism.
 
You get the idea here - denominationalism is in complete conflict with the word of God.  But I cannot stop yet. 
 
I have not even begun to talk about what the word of God says under other figures such as "washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:26) but why not?  The text says "That he might sanctify and cleanse it (the church, the saved, Christ's body - DS) with the washing of water by the word."  Denominationalism says it is nonsense to talk about a cleansing by the washing of water.
 
Paul says in Titus 3:5, "He saved us ... by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."  Denominationalism says there will be no washing in their regeneration.
 
2 Tim. 2:11 says, "if we died with Him, we will also live with Him."  Paul says "if" we have.  Earlier he said "we have been buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4)  Denominationalism says that is nonsense, we can die with him without baptism.  
 
As I pointed out in my article you are either in Christ or out according to what the bible says about it.  Denominationalism will always be at war with God's word until they come to see that to believe in Jesus means far more than just having some kind of abstract belief that he is the Son of God.  To believe in Jesus means one is willing to take him at his word and not argue about it.  If he says do a thing then Bible faith says "I will and I will believe, Jesus, in what you say about it."
 
One other comment and then I close.  When Jesus was on earth the New Covenant had not yet taken affect for while he is "the mediator of a new covenant" (Heb. 9:15), the gospel system, "a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." (Heb. 9:17 NAS)  Thus when Jesus lived and forgave men their sins on the basis of faith, when the thief on the cross was forgiven, etc., all of this was before the era of Christianity, before the New Covenant took affect.  The question for you and I is what do we do TODAY?  Today he has left us a covenant.  One is either in Christ or outside him.  You know how we get into him?  The Bible has made that clear so what now?  Thanks for commenting.   
 
I encourage the reader to read my other articles on Searchwarp for in them I have taken every conversion account listed in the book of Acts and dealt with it in a separate article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
» left by Terry Mitchell 3 years 76 days ago.
88 fans.
Denny, thanks your response. You satisfactorily addressed my question concerning the jailer but ignored my other points. I'll throw in an additional one right off the top of my head: "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and not by works lest any man should boast." I believe these are the words of Paul and there is obviously no reference to baptism here.
 
While I haven't counted them up, I will concede that there are probably more passages that would seem to indicate the necessity of baptism than there are those that would seem to indicate salvation by faith alone. However, a thousand of former are not enough to compensate for twenty of the latter. That's because, when it comes to Scripture, one cannot argue from a standpoint of preponderance, i.e., saying that there are more passages that support my belief than there are those which support yours, so I'm right and you're wrong. 
 
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems to be exactly what your argument is built on. And you seem to be going even further by implying that those who believe in salvation by faith alone somehow pulled that notion out of thin air or devised it in some kind of diabolical attempt to be "religiously correct." I can assure you that we didn't. We have plenty of Biblical support for our position. To paraphrase Dave Barry, we are not making this stuff up.
 
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I would never base any of my religious beliefs on anything that couldn't be supported in Scripture. In fact, it bothers me when I see people latching on to all kinds of New Age ideas and trying to incorporate them into Christianity. That's nothing but complete heresy, in my opinion. However, accusing someone of heresy for believing something that they can support with Scripture after Scripture seems a little over-the-top to me.
 
And here's another problem with the preponderance argument. People in New Testament days didn't have the written Scripture that we have. They did not have all of Jesus' words and Paul's letters bound up neatly into what we call the Holy Bible. They didn't not have the luxury of counting how many times the necessity of baptism was implied and comparing that with the number of references to salvation by faith alone. Many of these people just came into contact with Jesus or Paul just once in their entire lives. If, in that one encounter, Jesus or Paul preached salvation by faith and did not mention baptism, that was all they had to go on. Did those people who believed based on that information die in their sins?
 
BTW, do you remember what Jesus told the rich young ruler who asked Him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life? Jesus told him to repent and be baptized, right? Actually, no. He told him to sell everything he had, give the proceeds to the poor, and to "take up your cross and follow me." Have you sold everything you had, given the proceeds to the poor, and taken up your cross and followed Jesus?
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 76 days ago.
14 fans.
Terry, glad to hear from you again.  As we are in the process of moving and I have to be confined to the house waiting on handymen of every stripe, it seems, I have time to reply so this may be a long one. 
 
First, let me go back and address the points in your first comment that you feel I ignored.  I will start with John 3:16 as I assume you having said I had covered the jailer's conversion satisfactorily, or words to that affect, that this is where we need to start.
 
I have a question for you.  When  Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16 NAS) did belief in this passage then exclude repentance, confession, obedience, etc.?  If not why do you believe it excludes baptism? 
 
Secondly, though you do not intend it that way, you define faith in Jesus by disobedience.  Is that a biblical standard?  What would the book of James say about that?  Faith to you means not being baptized.  Faith in the book of Acts meant being baptized.  Every conversion without exception listed there, as soon as they heard the word of truth they were immediately baptized.  Why?  Because they believed.
 
It all comes down, Terry, to defining what faith is.  I believe a man is saved by faith just as you do but there is a difference in how we would define it.  I believe that a faith without works of obedience is a dead faith that cannot save.  James says as much, "faith without works is useless" (James 2:20), New American Standard version.  This is why in the book of Acts those who had faith in the message preached (part of which was always baptism) were immediately immersed.  Like Abraham (James 2:20-26) their faith was found to be genuine.
 
But, I ask the question, what if Paul, Philip, Ananias, or Peter preached baptism but then those who heard it refused to do it?  What would you say of their faith then?  Would there be any real faith there other than of the dead variety?  And, yet, this is the dead type of faith that denominationalism teaches that a man can be saved by.
 
I will not address the crippled man let down through the ceiling whose sins Jesus forgave for I did that in my first reply to you if you understood what I had to say about Christianity not even beginning until the New Covenant became effective at the death of Christ.  Jesus lived under the law of Moses and all those he dealt with while on earth lived under it with him.  People in that age or dispensation lived under a different law than we do.  In the New Covenant, the New Testament, Jesus has given us the rules of life, the way of life, by which we are to live today.
 
Finally, with regards to your first comments that you feel I did not answer you talk about Paul and quote Rom. 10:9-10 and then ask me how about that?  Well, how about it?  Let me quote the passage, "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
 
Your position is that salvation is by, or at the point of, faith alone.  Seems to me this very passage you use as support contradicts the point you are trying to make for it adds "confession" with the mouth into it.  This very passage teaches there is more to being saved than just faith alone.
 
But, there is more.  What will you do with Paul's teaching on baptism in this very book you quote?  See Rom. 6:3-7.  I could use that passage and probably write another 4 page article reinforcing my position from that alone.  It says, and I can't do 4 pages here, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus (the subject of my article you are objecting to - DS) have been baptized into His death?"  But, the way it is today some of us have not been baptized into his death have we?  Maybe you have personally but not the denominational world as a whole.
 
When does Paul say here that we walk in newness of life?  When does that begin according to Paul?  See verse 4.  In baptism the old man dies and we arise a new creation.  "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature." (2 Cor. 5:17)  How does the bible say we get into Christ?  Reread my article you object to. 
 
Then back to Rom. 6 again, in verse 5 Paul says "if we have."  Yes, if we have.  That is the whole point.  Faith only has not.  Read and reason.
 
Now to respond to your present comments.  Right off the bat in this reply to me you make an attempt again to get Paul into a position where he contradicts himself.  I know you know, if you think about it, that truth cannot be truth if it is contradictory.  Truth never contradicts itself.  See my article entitled "Bible Contradictions" on Searchwarp.
 
Yes, a man is saved by faith.  I totally agree as I have already said but again it is a matter of what Bible faith is, of how it is defined, what the bible says about faith.  Not one time does the Bible say we are saved by faith alone.  The only time that phrase is used (faith alone) in the Bible is when James uses it saying "not by faith alone." (James 2:24 NAS)
 
James says, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)  Martin Luther did not believe Paul's teaching in Romans about salvation by faith could be reconciled with James' teaching on works (see my article, "Bible Contradictions").  Wrong.  James was talking about works of obedience.  Paul spoke of works specifically designed to earn one's way into heaven.  The law of Moses was just such a law.  You had to earn your way in.  Grace is about falling short and God giving forgiveness.  It is not about ignoring the commands of Jesus and being saved anyway.  You absolutely must obey Jesus as he is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Heb. 5:9).  But, if you have done your best, given your all, and have still fallen short (and it is impossible not to fall short) grace is designed to step in and make the difference.
 
But, there is more.  Yes, a part of grace is that which I have just talked about but do you not know that the sending of Jesus to earth was in itself an act of grace?  The cross was an act of grace, the blood of Jesus was an act of grace, the giving of the gospel message to man was an act of grace, giving us commands to believe and obey was an act of grace (the giving of the word).  God did not have to do any of these things.  But, he did.
 
Grace does not just suddenly step in at the day of judgment.  God has already given us grace.  The question is what will we do with it?  When God tells me to be baptized for the remission of sins, do you not see, that in itself is an act of grace.  Why?  How?  (1) He has provided a way for me to receive forgiveness according to his command.  (2) He has told me about it giving me opportunity.
 
I move on.  You talk about preponderance of scripture as though I do not agree.  If there was only one verse teaching a thing to be found in the entire New Testament one would be enough.  You would be obligated beyond question to believe and obey it. But, again, you are arguing and making an either/or argument that I do not make, you do.
 
You say it is either salvation by faith alone or by baptism.  I do not accept or believe the premise.  In my article "Bible Contradictions - True or False?" I have listed, without counting them up here, eight or nine things, and there are probably more (it was not an exhaustive listing) by which the word of God says we are saved.  I take the position that every single one of those things are essential to your or my salvation.  You say no.  You say only one thing - faith.  I deny it. 
 
It is not that baptism is the do all and end all of salvation but the position of denominationalism is that it matters not in the least in any real meaningful way.  I deny that.  I only listed a great number of passages, and I could have listed many more, teaching the necessity of baptism because so many people think there is only one or two passages (Acts 2:38) that deal with the subject when the truth is the New Testament is saturated with passages on it.  I had hardly gotten a good start.
 
You then say people in the NT era didn't have the written scripture that we have and that if Jesus or Paul came around and if "in that one encounter, Jesus or Paul preached salvation by faith and did not mention baptism, that was all they had to go on.  Did those people who believed based on that information die in their sins?"
 
First of all Jesus never came around after his new covenant, the gospel system, the New Testament, became binding upon us.  Read the book of Hebrews and see when the new covenant, the New Testament, became the law under which we live (and yes Jesus does have a law, see a concordance).
 
"For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." (Heb. 9:17)  Please get that, "it is never in force while the one who made it lives."  The gospel system came into being after, not before, the cross. 
 
Besides you are forgetting what Jesus commanded just before his ascension.  Matt. 28:18-20, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  You say what if Paul did not preach it, if he only preached salvation by faith, were they lost?  I say did Paul obey the command Jesus gave in giving the apostles this commission or not?  If he did obey it there was no such thing as him preaching what you say he may have.  He always preached baptism.
 
In closing you talk about the rich young ruler and what Jesus told him.  Again, you are getting your timing all out of kelter.  Had the gospel era yet begun when Jesus made those comments?  Were they still living under the law of Moses then or was it the New Covenant?  Were we living at that point in time, the time of the rich young ruler, under the law of Moses or the law of Christ?  Had Christ died yet for the remission of sins?  Had he yet shed his blood? 
 
God has always demanded of man faith and obedience regardless of the era or dispensation.  However, what was required of man, that which he was to obey, changed with the change of eras in which men have lived.  We live in a different era today than did the several examples of men being saved without baptism that you mention.  The rules for us are different than they were for them.  Read the book of Galatians and Hebrews.
 
I think that finishes this up.  Hope Searchwarp stays happy with all these long comments of mine.  Thanks for writing or commenting.  Denny
» left by Terry Mitchell 3 years 76 days ago.
88 fans.
Denny, now you're confusing me. You say that we "absolutely must obey Jesus as he is the author of eternal salvation ..." But then you turn around and say that some of Jesus' words can be disregarded because he lived in the time of the Old Covenant. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
 
John the Baptist lived in the time of the Old Convenant as well, yet he was commanding people to repent and be baptized. Was that just an anachronism? If not, why then didn't Jesus tell that crippled man and the rich young ruler to repent and be baptized?
 
And if they were indeed living under the Old Covenant, why didn't Jesus order them to make an animal sacrifice? That's what the Old Covenant called for. Funny, I don't remember any provision in the Old Covenant for sins being forgiven automatically or because one sells all that he has and gives it to the poor.
 
And by what method was the crippled man's sins forgiven? He apparently didn't offer any kind of animal sacrifice. Remember, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." You've already ruled out Jesus' blood because you said the man was living under the Old Covenant.
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 66 days ago.
14 fans.
Terry, I discovered quite by accident tonight that you had made a comment I was unaware of until now.  I thought Searchwarp always notified one of comments made but I don't think I received one this time.  As we have been moving in a different house I have not spent as much time online as I had been.
 
It is late tonight and I am tired so will be brief.   Your misunderstanding is almost all centered around this one thing, a failure to distinguish between the convenants and when they were in affect.  You are not alone by any means.  Many think we still live under the 10 commandments and yet refuse to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  Maybe I will write more later, maybe even an article in response, which, if so, I will notify you when I post it.  In the mean time read my article entitled "Abuse of the Old Testament."  But, far, far more importantly read the book of Galatians and the book of Hebrews.  P.S. I will try and write an article.  No promise but I will try.
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 42 days ago.
14 fans.
Terry, I made a short response to your comment about 3 weeks ago and said at the time I might try and later write an article dealing with the subject.  I have done so and placed it on Searchwarp.  The article is entitled "Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross."
 
It will not address every issue you have but it is a start.  I also need to write an article sooner or later about the blood of Jesus and maybe I can get to that down the road.  (The bible teaches his blood flowed backwards covering the sins of those under the old convenant as well as flowing forward to cover your sins and mine.)
 
It is just impossible to write one 4 or 5 page article and cover all the objections that one might raise.  I would encourage you to listen to some of the sermons I direct you to at the bottom of my article in the author's bio area.
» left by Avis Ward
 3 years 77 days ago.
131 fans.
Salvation is a "gift from God." It is very simple to receive this gift. We are to work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling. The details are ours to workout and since God judges the heart, His Grace and Mercy are there for us. It also covers what is delivered from the pulpit either through ignorance or deception to the flock. Their [ministers, priests etc] responsibility is great and should be taken seriously.

It's good to read what other believers believe. I will venture to say all of us are religious to some degree but then again, God knows the heart. What I enjoy more than anything about our beliefs is, we know Jesus Christ, the Son of God as the Savior of the world. We believe! Whether to immerse, sprinkle, or not, I believe (smile), will not keep believers from spending eternity with God. Terry gave quite a number of scriptures to support my belief.

Denny, a very good article to read. Perhaps my comments support its title. But I must add, for the record, I do not consider myself a "so called Christian." I press toward the mark . . .-just as you do.

Blessings to you,
Avis
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 77 days ago.
14 fans.
Thanks for commenting.  You seem very sincere.  I replied to Terry in an earlier comment.  Maybe that will be helpful.
 
I encourage you because of your obvious sincerity.  I encourage you to believe every word of God.  Jesus said, "man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matt. 4:4)  You know what the word says for I quoted it in my article.  We ought to believe and obey the word.
 
Do not do as I have heard others say, "I know what it says but I believe ... ."  That is kind of a slap in the face of Jesus.  I do wish you well for you appear to be a person with a good heart and I thank you again for commenting.
» left by Avis Ward 3 years 77 days ago.
131 fans.
Denny, thank you. I read your response to Terry. I believe every Word in the Bible. I am afraid to say, "I know what it says, but I believe . . . " then make it fit to condone sin. No way! Just as the Lord took the thief into Paradise with Him, I believe those who have not had water baptism will not be denied either. I most emphatically believe in baptism with the Holy Spirit and water baptism. We must believe, pray, repent, confess and be baptized. If a Pastor does not teach baptism by the Holy Spirit and water, I do not believe the Lord will hold the flock responsible, unless they learn the truth otherwise. This is my belief from that example from the Word and just as you saw my heart, the Lord sees more clearly than you what's there and will be merciful.

And Denny, I thank you for seeing a "good heart." I try. Thank you for taking time to respond, also.
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 76 days ago.
14 fans.
Avis, I am convinced you are sincere and mean well and that is what I meant by a good heart but having said that God is the one who is in the heart judging business and so I probably ought to stay out of it.  The heart is kind of a dangerous thing for Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9)   
 
He then goes on to say, "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways." (Jer. 17:10)  So, it seems the bottom line is not good intentions but our ways, our doings.  Take this for what it is, just a general statement and not directed at you, but for a reminder to me, you, and all mankind that it is what we do that ultimately counts and what we do is based on what we believe.
 
I really did not address this last night in responding to your comments for I was tired and it was late and I had already written a long response to Terry but I have to kindly disagree with some of your comments from that posting.  You said, "We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." (true - DS)  But, then your very next line is "The details are ours to workout."  It could be I am misunderstanding you but if you are saying we are free to do it our way I disagree.  There is only one way, God's way, and we ought to be able to quote book, chapter, and verse for what we do in religion.  But, it may be that I misunderstood you so you know what you meant and I am just making a comment.
 
You commented, "Whether to immerse, sprinkle, or not, I believe (smile), will not keep believers from spending eternity with God."  The trouble with that is that it leaves God out of the equation altogether and allows man to decide the definition for baptism.  The Greek meant to immerse.  There was no sprinkling in the word.
 
Man added sprinkling long after the fact, added a new definition.  Did God tell them they could?  Did they ask him?  If he did not tell them they were guilty of presumption and deciding for God which is tantamount to adding to his word.  We are not free to define words any which way we choose.  And, by the way, if they were free to give a new definition why am I not also free to do the same?  How about touching the body with a wet finger and calling it baptism.  If they could invent and add why can't I?  Were they who first did this long after the first century not but mere men?  I am a mere man.
 
Avis, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself in your second posting for you say "I believe every Word in the Bible" but then say "I believe those who have not had water baptism will not be denied either."  Do you believe what Jesus said in John 3:5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?  He says it cannot be done, not possible, you seem to be saying it is possible.  Your implication is that baptism is not for the remission of sins, that they can be remitted or forgiven without it, but that is not what Peter said speaking by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  I just do not know how to reconcile your statement that you believe every word of God with your take on baptism.  You probably have it reconciled in your mind but I just cannot see how such can be done.  It cannot be done in a class on logic for it makes two contradictory things both out to be truth.
 
What I need is for someone to tell me where I have misused a passage.  Take an easy one, Acts 2:38.  I have argued that from what it says that it teaches that baptism is for the remission of sins.  I need someone to show me where it does not teach that and likewise with the other verses I have used.  Show me where I have abused those passages one by one and where I have perverted them.
 
But, instead, what is done is the fence is jumped, my arguments are ignored and not dealt with, and a passage on faith is inserted into the discussion.  When that has happened I have tried to deal with them but what I look for is for someone to take my book, chapter, and verse arguments, one by one, and refute each of them individually.
 
Avis, I want you to realize that in writing a response to your comments I have to bear in mind that I am writing not just for your sake but for the sake of all who will hereafter be reading your comments and mine.  In the past two paragraphs that has been specifically what I have been doing. 
 
I believe you to be a woman who means well.  One who is kind.  If we disagree it does not mean we have to be enemies.  It may be we do not understand one another but it does not have to mean enmity.  I certainly do not question your sincerity.  Denny
» left by Avis Ward 3 years 76 days ago.
131 fans.
Denny, you did misunderstand the "work out the details." I admittedly do not "know" the answers but strive to live by the Holy Bible as it is written. There is so much interpretation from the original text.

I can understand if you feel I am contradicting myself. I believe the Word of God as I understand from the personal relationship I have with the Lord and others, such as you. I do not consider myself a teacher of the Word. Not my gifting so I am open to receive but with caution.

I respect you for answering Terry and me. I am fully persuaded by the Word of God. I do not want to mislead or be responsible for someone not making it into Heaven because of something I said. I ask for His forgiveness if that has happened. Because I wish to know more, I will use this article as a study. I am in the process of packing and moving. Time doesn't afford me to do it now. I will happily post a reply here and/or to you via email.

I will say this, I believe and am happy you do, too. It's what is believed from me about what you have said that needs to be addressed further. I am 'familiar' with every scripture you used. Quoting them doesn't make me an authority.

Thank you for handling this in the spirit I meant with no cynicism or sarcasm. We all need Truth, not supposition.

Blessings to you,
Avis
» left by Denny Smith 3 years 76 days ago.
14 fans.
I wish you the best with that moving thing.  We are still completing a move of our own and it has been tough going.  I believe it has been two weeks we have gone without water we can use.  Hopefully, that will end in a day or two but moving is certainly not easy.
 
I am not a teacher or preacher so it sounds like we are in the same boat there as you said you were not a teacher.  I would last just long enough to get fired.
 
Maybe we can talk again some time.  I have found you to be most pleasant.  Denny 
 
 
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.