Philip Preaching the Gospel in Samaria

 "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (Acts 8:12 NAS)

Most people with an elementary knowledge of the scriptures understand that the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.   If one wants to learn what one must do to be saved from sin it is a great place to start. This sermon was the first ever preached after Jesus’ resurrection and return to heaven where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father.   His blood had now been shed for the remission of the sins of man.  Full forgiveness was now possible.

After Peter’s preaching Jesus on that day of Pentecost, having made believers of approximately 3,000 souls, Peter exhorted them to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 NAS)   What was required for their salvation that day?   Faith, repentance, and baptism.

Who was saved that Day of Pentecost?   The text tells us, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41 NAS)  Who was saved?  Was it those who believed the word only?  Or, was it those who heard the word and acted on it, who repented and were baptized?  To ask is to answer.

We find a similar account in Acts 8 but this time a different Holy Spirit inspired preacher, Philip the Evangelist.  Here we see Philip preaching in the city of Samaria and the text tells us he “began proclaiming Christ to them.” (Acts 8:5 NAS) But, now watch what happened.  “When they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” (Acts 8:12 NAS)`

The Acts 8:12 passage parallels Acts 2:41.  What was the good news Philip preached?   Was it the gospel Peter preached?  Was it “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16 NAS)?  I am sure we can all agree on this.

The text says "they believed Philip" (Acts 8:12) with regard to what he was preaching.  This is the equivalent of "those who had received his word" with reference to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41.  When they believed Philip what did they do?  The text says "they were being baptized."  In Acts 2:41 when they received Peter's word what did they do?  They were baptized.   Thus we see that in the beginning of the church, of Christianity, of faith in Christ, that when the gospel was preached and believed or received it led to people being baptized.  There has to be a reason for that.

Is baptism a part of the gospel?  Is it a part of the good news?   It is if it is "for the forgiveness of your sins" as per Acts 2:38.  It is if Peter preached it.  It is if Philip preached it.  It is if these two Holy Spirit inspired men preached it.  It is if it is a part of God’s means of saving people, a part of God’s plan.  Saying this is not discounting faith in any way.   It is only those who first believe who benefit by baptism.   Baptism is the obedience of faith.   It is what a scriptural faith leads to.

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

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

I am reminded of those living in the lifetime of John the Baptist who rejected John’s baptism. The Bible says, “But, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30 NAS)   We now live under King Jesus who has a baptism of his own for mankind.   Are we going to reject it?  Is not the baptism Jesus gives us God’s purpose for us?

If you have never been baptized for the remission of sins you are in a fight against God.   Don't be one of those who insist on being saved your way rather than the way taught by Peter and Philip, by the Holy Spirit.   You cannot win in a fight against God.   It is his narrow gate or the wide gate and the gate you enter makes all the difference (Matt. 7:13-14).  You cannot become a child of God by disobedience, by ignoring his word, by doing it the way my group believes. God only has one group--those who have done it his way.  It is "the Way."   The way of salvation.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland on the road to Gaza and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (Isa. 53:7-8– DS) he preached Jesus to him.  And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached baptism was preached as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner.  When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized.  The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him it?  Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Without the remission of one’s sins a person cannot be saved.  

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS).  Here in Acts 8:35-36, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism.  This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him." 

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching - first Peter and now Philip.  In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached.  They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it.  Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted.  Which do you believe?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Obedience of Faith and Justification by Faith—A Conflict?

The book of Romans begins and ends talking about the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5 and Rom. 16:26). In chapter 1 Paul says, “We have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS) In Rom. 16 he speaks of the gospel being made known to all nations with the purpose being “obedience of faith.” (Rom. 16:26 NAS)

Obedience of faith is simply the obedience that grows out of or is the result of faith. No man obeys God who does not first believe in God and believes what God says. Without faith, there is no motivation for obedience. Where there is no faith the natural man prevails--our fleshly human nature. We do what pleases us without thought of God.

Faith is always the first step in pleasing God. “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him.” (Heb. 11:6 NAS)

Jesus said, in speaking of himself in John 8:24, “Unless you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins.” (NAS) Jesus again, “he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NAS) We might say disbelieved what? The gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Mark 16:15-16), the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 8:37, Philippians 2:11, 1 John 3:23), that he is Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).

So, faith is essential to salvation. Where there is no faith salvation is impossible. We must always remember, however, that “faith without works is useless.” (James 2:20 NAS) “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26 NAS) Thus in John 12, we find a group of believers who could not be saved. “Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in him but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.” (John 12:42-43 NAS) We do well to remember even demons believe (James 2:19).

The faith Paul spoke of in the book of Romans was that which led to obedience. It was an obedience of faith. It was a living faith and not a dead faith.

I have said all of that to get to this point. Why is it that men use Rom. 5:1-2 in such a way as to make void works (obedience) of faith? Rom. 5:1-2 reads as follows:

“Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.” (NAS)

It is widely taught that man is saved by faith alone and this passage is often used as one proof text. Of course, we are justified by faith but not faith alone or faith only. “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 NAS) Faith must be accompanied by obedience for it is the obedience of faith that saves--a living faith and not a dead one.

In Acts chapter 2 Peter preaches the first gospel sermon ever to be preached not long after Christ’s ascension back to heaven. All agree that he spoke by inspiration as the Holy Spirit had just fallen upon the apostles. He argues that the Jesus whom they had not long ago crucified was and is the Christ of God. What is the result? Does he convince them? He most certainly does for they cry out being “pierced to the heart … ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37 NAS)

Would you dare say these men lack faith? According to our saved by faith-alone friends, the mission has been accomplished. Nothing else to be done. They are saved. Oh, they might, according to the teaching of our times, offer a prayer to God confessing to him--a confession of faith--but that is it.

Did Peter tell them they were saved when he realized they believed?  If they did not believe they would not have asked what they must do, Acts 2:37.  Did he tell them to offer a prayer of confession to God? He neither told them they were saved nor to pray. I emphasize this--he did neither. With Peter, the Holy Spirit being in Peter, they were not yet saved, not yet forgiven of their sins. What was left to be done? Obedience of faith, repentance and baptism. In Peter’s own words, “repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 NAS)

Paul’s conversion was similar as found in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26. When the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus there was no doubt but what faith came instantly to him. Salvation by faith only advocates have Paul saved at this point. They have him saved by their human doctrine but God does not.

Paul (called Saul at that time) spends the next 3 days in Damascus neither eating nor drinking, strange behavior for a man who should be rejoicing in his salvation if he is saved (Acts 9:9). He prays (Acts 9:11). Now, according to the salvation by faith alone people, he has to be saved. He has faith. He has prayed. It is a done deal.

Not so with the man sent from God to Paul, the man Ananias. Ananias tells him to “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 NAS) Jesus had already told all who would believe him, a long time before Paul’s conversion, that water was involved in salvation. In Jesus’ words, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NAS) He said, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NAS)

What is baptism? It is one aspect of obedience of faith. In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached that first sermon would there have been obedience of faith had those he spoke to failed to heed his admonition? What if Paul had refused to heed the words of Ananias? Would there have been obedience of faith?

Justification by faith is dependent on obedience of faith. The book of Romans was not written to people who had not been baptized. I want to emphasize that point. Those to whom Paul wrote were baptized people.

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:3-4 NAS) Who gets to walk in newness of life? Paul tells you. It is the man or woman who has been baptized.

How is it, do you suppose, that the Romans came to know about baptism? Do you suppose it was taught to them in the same way Peter taught those in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost? Paul also tells how the Romans got into Christ. He says, “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NAS) He said the same thing in Gal. 3:27 in writing to the Galatian Christians.

Of grace, Paul says “We have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (Rom. 5:2 NAS) He is talking to us all but in context, the message is to the Romans. Where is grace found? We are to “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NAS) We enter into Christ by the obedience of faith. Our faith leads us to be baptized per Mark 16:15-16. When we have done so we have been saved by grace for we are then found in Christ where grace is found.

I know a lot of people have a hard time with grace and law. Any effort to be obedient, especially being baptized, is seen as a work and thus working one’s way to heaven. What people fail to understand is man has always been and always will be under law to God.

If there has been no law there has been no sin for John defines sin as being lawlessness, “sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4 NAS) Were Adam and Eve under law to God? How about the people in the time of Noah? Why did they die if not because of lawlessness? How about the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? I remind the reader all of this was before the time of the Law of Moses. Then later we have a long period of time when the Jews were under the Law of Moses.

Well, how about today? Are we under law today? Paul says if we “bear one another’s burdens” we “fulfil the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2 NAS) To the Corinthians he speaks of himself as “not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ.” (1 Cor. 9:21 NAS) Being under grace as we are today does not mean lawlessness. If Paul was under the law of Christ so are you and I. In Romans, the very book from which this article is drawn, Paul says “The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God.” (Rom. 8:7 NAS)

Yet, the reader of the book of Romans will recall that a good portion of the book deals with the teaching that one cannot be saved by the works of the law. “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in his sight.” (Rom. 3:20 NAS) One thing that is often overlooked as people read through books such as Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews is that what the writer is combating, generally speaking, is the idea held by many Jews that keeping the Law of Moses was the road to salvation.

Paul often had to deal with Judaizing teachers within the church for even when converted to Christ many still believed keeping the Law of Moses, to one degree or another, was essential and were happy to try and bind that upon others. Thus there was an attempt by some to bind things like circumcision (Gal. 5:3) and it is said of Peter that he feared “the party of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12 NAS). Had this group had their way it would have eventually destroyed Christianity.

It is true no man can be saved by law-keeping apart from grace. Salvation by law requires perfection in law-keeping. Thus Paul says, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.’” (Gal. 3:10 NAS) One mistake and you are not saved but condemned by law.

That being the case James says, “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10 NAS) When one breaks a single law he has convicted himself as being a lawbreaker. A criminal is a criminal. It matters not what one specific law he broke.

James’ statement is as applicable to the law of Christ as to any law. With regards even to the law of our land, you became a lawbreaker the first time you exceeded the speed limit by even a single mile per hour. You will always be guilty of having done that. You were a lawbreaker and there is no going back and undoing it.

This is why to be saved we must be saved by God’s grace. God being perfect himself demands perfection in us if we are to be saved by works of law. For us that is an impossibility.

But, does salvation by grace mean salvation by disobedience? Does it mean disregard for the law of God? Paul says, “May it never be!” (Rom. 6:2 NAS) Please listen now carefully to what Paul has to say and mull it over in your mind.

“How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death.” (Rom. 6:2-3 NAS) We have been baptized into his death where he shed his blood, the blood that redeems us. Baptism is the place where that blood is contacted. In baptism, we experience our own death to sin. Thus Paul says, in the conclusion of verse 3, “So we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:3 NAS)

God has always saved man the same way--by faith and obedience, “obedience resulting in righteousness.” (Rom. 6:16 NAS) Other versions say “obedience to righteousness” (NKJV), “obedience, which leads to righteousness” (ESV), and so on.

The beginning of salvation is found in the beginning of the obedience of faith, not in a non-acting faith that resides in the mind alone. That is why Peter demanded of believers that day so long ago that they “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV) That is the obedience of faith, the faith that saves. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Catholicism’s Denial of The Holy Spirit’s Teaching

If the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the pages of the New Testament is truth then whatever denies that truth is false, is false teaching and error.  The thesis of this article is that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the Holy Spirit’s teaching that there was an all-sufficiency of doctrine given in the first century sufficient to save the souls of humanity across all time to come.

I am sure the Catholic Church would deny this but how can they?  Reason says that if everything needed to save mankind's souls was given in the first century there is no reason or need for additional doctrines in the centuries following.  Yet the Catholic Church has piled new doctrine upon new doctrine seemingly without end down through the ages until our own time, and on and on it goes.

The Catholic Church has no set doctrine.  The best that can be said is that it is set for a time. But, time flies by and new doctrine is added.  What once was is history, is past, and the new replaces the old.  The old Catholic Church is revised with each newly added teaching and thus becomes the newest edition of the church.  In doing so it differs from the old and is therefore not the old.

One can go online and do a search and readily find when various doctrines came to be added to the Catholic Church.  Do not think for a moment that the Catholic Church of the 21st century is the same as the one in earlier centuries; it has been and continues to be a transforming institution compounding doctrines.  God does not change (Malachi 3:6), the Catholic Church does.  This continual addition of new teachings flies in the face of the teaching of scripture.

 

Jude says as clearly as language can make it that “the faith...was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  Then in the first century.  Everything needed for salvation from the hand of God was delivered to mankind “then.”  The faith Jude speaks of is that body of doctrine given through Christ and his apostles and prophets in the first century, in Jude’s lifetime.  It was once for all delivered meaning it was complete then and there.  There was nothing to be added to it.  That means that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer to mankind today that is of value as far as salvation goes.  That was all provided for in the first century.  We also must remember Jude wrote by inspiration.  The book of Jude is the Holy Spirit’s writing.

But, Jude is not alone.  Peter says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  If so what does Catholicism’s additional doctrines added down through the ages profit us?  Does “all things” mean all things?  Again, we have the Holy Spirit writing through human agency, through the inspired apostle Peter.  If “all” means all then we need no more than what was available in the first century and available to us in scripture.

James says in the first century the implanted word was able to save their souls (James 1:21), in that time.  Are we to believe it is not able to do so in our time?  What weakened it?  They had the implanted word available in James' time.  There was no need to wait for the development of Catholic doctrine.  James’ words were the Spirit’s words.

Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 commended them “to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32 NKJV)  When?  Then!  They did not need additional doctrines for salvation handed down centuries later.

Writing by inspiration Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)  He wrote that in the first century.  Paul said “scripture” made a man complete, not scripture plus church tradition.  Here again, you have the element of time.  You could become complete in the first century.  There was no need to wait for generations to come until you could get the full deposit of Catholic Church doctrine which is impossible anyway for there is no end to its additions.  

Paul told Timothy that “the Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15 NKJV)  Not so if a man must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines down through the ages.  Paul said by inspiration “the Holy Scriptures,” not scripture plus tradition.

Were the people on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 saved when they obeyed Peter’s preaching?  Not if you must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines for salvation. You can say the same thing about all the others who believed and obeyed the gospel recorded in the book of Acts.

How is it that under Catholicism a man or woman can be saved at one time and yet at a later time another individual must believe additional doctrine to achieve the same end? If that is the case then does not that make multiple gospels versus just one?  I use the term gospel in the sense of the body of faith one must believe for salvation.

The Bible teaches there is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), one body of truth to be believed. Which one is it in Roman Catholicism?  Is it the truth of 800 A.D., 1300 A.D., 1900 A.D., or 2025 A.D.?  Or, set your own dates.  You will readily see things have changed and who can believe we have seen the end of it?

The Bible teaches that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16), that was taught in the first century, but that was before Catholic tradition kicked in during the later centuries.  Did not Paul, the writer of that Roman passage, foresee that later Catholic tradition when translated into doctrine was essential?

In the book of Acts much is written about “the word” of God being preached, heard, believed, and obeyed.  Here is a question for all who have an open mind.  Did that word include any of the Marian dogmas Catholics teach today?  Even one word?  Did it include teaching on Peter being the rock the church was being built upon?  Did it include teaching on the rosary, indulgences, transubstantiation, and the list could go on and on?  An honest person knows the answer.

One might argue the book of Acts only records examples of initial gospel obedience, evangelizing.  I respond, Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, as an example, did he never preach Christian doctrine during that entire time?  Several of the books he wrote were written to places he had evangelized – Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica.  Did Paul preach Catholic doctrine in those locations?  Be honest with yourself.

Paul, by inspiration, wrote Second Thessalonians in which he wrote of a future “falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3), other translations use the words “rebellion” or “apostasy.”  The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church.  If so when is it going to fall away or has it already?  If it has or if it will can it be said it is the true church?  One must think long and hard about that.  If I as an individual fall away from a marriage, a team, a business, or an institution of any kind I was involved in then I am no longer a part of it. If the church becomes apostate it is no longer the church. It becomes something entirely different which is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church is today.  Do not claim to be what you once were if you are no longer what you once were.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the original church of the New Testament.  That one church in its apostasy evolved into the Catholic Church.  Paul taught that the original church would fall away (2 Thess. 2:3).  If it is not what it once was then it is not the church of the New Testament, not any longer, not in its fallen state.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is no longer similar to the church one reads about on the pages of scripture; it is not that church.  As a result of its innovations, it is as much separate from true Christianity as Islam, Buddhism, or any other non-related religion.  The Catholic Church readily admits scripture is not enough for them.  They have their tradition and it trumps scripture when push comes to shove.  What was good enough for people in the first century is not good enough for them.  They will have more and more but one must always remember that whether having more of a thing is good or bad depends on what that thing is.  More of self-will and less of God’s will is not good.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]