In Christ or Out of Christ

The phrase “in Christ” is of vast importance in New Testament teaching. One must be “in Christ” to be saved. The phrase itself is found 87 times in the New King James Version of the New Testament and 91 times in the English Standard Version, so we run across the phrase frequently in our Bibles. Well, what does the phrase mean? It depends on the context.

Context always matters in determining the meaning of words and phrases. It is no different with this phrase. For example, in Acts 24:24, Felix “sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.” (NKJV) In this passage Christ is the object of faith, thus this is only a reference to the person of Christ versus some other man.

By contrast, you run into a passage like 1 Cor. 15:17-18, which reads, “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” (NKJV) In this passage “in Christ” clearly has reference to a location in the spiritual realm.

We are concerned with the phrase “in Christ” in this article only where the phrase is used in reference to a spiritual location. In the physical realm each body is separate from another body; we each have our own. In the spiritual realm we are to become one body with Christ. We enter into Christ. We are “baptized into Christ” and, having done so, “have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) Christ’s spiritual body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18).

One cannot overemphasize the importance of being “in Christ,” in being a reference to location. Wherever I am, it automatically excludes me from being anywhere else. I cannot be physically present in your house and in someone else’s house at the same time. In Christianity, in the spiritual realm, one is either “in Christ” or outside him. There are no other possible alternatives.

To be in Christ means:

·  Forgiveness. The apostle Paul, writing to the Colossians, says, “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col. 1:13-14 NKJV) In whom? The text makes it clear: in Christ. Yes, we are saved through Christ, through what he did on the cross, but we are saved in Christ, by being placed in his body through gospel obedience.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV) “There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Rom. 3:10 NKJV) If you desire forgiveness of your sins you must be “in Christ.” “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV) Forgiveness is in Christ, not outside of him.

·   Redemption. Paul, in Romans 3:24, speaks of “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (NKJV) We are redeemed from sin and its consequences. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) Jesus purchased us with his blood, the price for the forgiveness of our sins. “You were bought at a price.” (1 Cor. 6:20 NKJV) Peter tells us the price: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold … but with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19 NKJV) Things are redeemed at a cost. Redemption is “in Christ,” not outside him. How do I know? The Bible tells me so, Rom. 3:24.

·   Salvation. In 2 Tim. 2:10, Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (NKJV) Isn’t that the thing we all long for? It is found “in Christ,” not outside him.

·   Promise of Life. Paul speaks of “the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 1:1 NKJV) Even if death were simply a state of unconsciousness, which it is not, do we not all desire life? The promise of life is in Jesus, not outside him.

·   Eternal Life. “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23 NKJV) In Christ, there need be no more fear of death, or of sickness, or illness, or of separation. “And God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev. 21:4 NKJV) But this is “in Christ,” not outside him.

·   No Condemnation. “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:1 NKJV) It is a wonderful thing not to have to carry around the burden of sin, but this is only “in Christ,” not outside of him. We are not condemned “in Christ.” Outside Christ is a different matter.

·   Alive to God. We are “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:11 NKJV) Man cannot come to God in any way other than through Christ. Jesus’ own words were, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV) “In Christ” we are alive to God. Outside Christ, we are dead to God. You cannot live for God outside Christ.

·   A New Creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) “New creation” is “new creature” in the New American Standard translation. Do you want a new start in life? Do you need one? It is only found “in Christ.” A new life, a new beginning, is found “in Christ,” not outside him.

·   The Love of God. In Rom. 8:38-39, Paul tells Christians there is no outside power that “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (NKJV) Yes, sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:2), but in Christ those sins are forgiven. God loves us even as sinners (John 3:16, Rom. 5:8), but in Christ the floodgates of God’s love are wide open toward us. You can rest assured of God’s love for you “in Christ.”

·   God’s kindness. “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:7 NKJV) God’s kindness comes to us “in Christ,” not outside of him.

·   Sanctification. Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth, begins his letter “to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV) We are sanctified in Christ, which means we are made holy. We become consecrated to God in Christ. One cannot be made holy outside Christ. Holiness is found “in Christ,” not outside Christ.

·   Grace. Do you want to be saved by grace? It is the only way any of us can be saved. If so, grace is found “in Christ,” not outside him. “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NKJV) If grace is found there, that is where you and I need to be, “in Christ.” If you were told where riches were found for the taking, the wise individual would go to that location.

·   Every spiritual blessing. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” (Eph. 1:3 NKJV) Spiritual blessings are found “in Christ,” not outside him. What are these blessings? That is the very thing we are discussing in this article, incomplete as it is.

·   The righteousness of God. “For he has made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21 NKJV) “In him” is clearly a reference to Jesus. In Jesus we find our righteousness, “in Christ,” not outside Christ.

Surely any open-minded person who believes the Bible to be the word of God can see the absolute necessity of being “in Christ” for salvation and to obtain the many blessings associated with being “in Christ.” Thus, the only question remaining is how one enters into Christ? Although this was discussed earlier, let us go over it again. The Bible plainly tells us how we enter into Christ. “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) “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)

No, baptism will not bring you into Christ without faith and repentance, but baptism is the final step one takes to enter into Christ. How do I know? The Bible just told me so in the passages just quoted.

Few in Christendom believe baptism is essential. They think they can get “in Christ” some other way, although the passage that teaches that way has never been provided. We, as human beings, are heavily influenced by what the majority thinks. If your own thinking contradicts the thought of the majority, it seems natural to question yourself. How can I be right and everyone else be wrong? In addition to that, there are negative consequences for bucking the consensus of thought. There is pressure to conform. Who wants to be ostracized? Who wants to alienate friends and family? It is easy to tell yourself baptism does not matter because that seems to be what the majority of Christendom has concluded.

However, I am reminded that Peter and the apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29 NKJV) They were speaking for themselves, but no doubt the same principle applies to us as well. One is also reminded of Paul’s statement to the Galatians, “Do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Gal. 1:10 NKJV)

To be “in Christ” or to be out of Christ, that is the decision all persons of accountable age must make. I will close this with words from an old hymn often sung: “trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” If you have not obeyed Jesus in baptism it is past time. Today is the day of salvation. Today is the day to enter Christ.

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

 

Paul, Baptism, And The Twelve At Ephesus

A few preliminary comments are in order before entering into the topic of our article.

Many people believe baptism is unrelated to salvation, that it is not necessary to become a Christian, and that one can be saved without it. Often Paul is cited from the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:14–17, where he says he is thankful he baptized none of the Corinthians except Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and goes on to say, “Christ did not send me to baptize” (v. 17). Christ sent him “to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17, CSB). Many take this to mean Paul did not believe baptism was essential to salvation. We need to look a bit further.

Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 by preaching the gospel there. He was there a year and a half (Acts 18:11). It seems many have overlooked what happened as a result of Paul's preaching in Corinth. The text says, “Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8, CSB). If Paul did not include baptism as a part of the gospel he preached, how did they come to know about it? Why were they baptized if it was not a part of the gospel?

Does it matter that Paul left the actual baptizing to his associates rather than personally doing it himself? Paul does not say, “I am glad none of you were baptized.” He only says his charge was to preach the gospel. His helpers could do the work of baptizing (Silas and Timothy were with Paul in Corinth; Acts 18:5). The validity of one's baptism is not dependent on who does the immersing.

If Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, and there is only one gospel, then Paul preached what Peter preached, and that included baptism. Remember Peter's words when he preached the first gospel sermon ever on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (CSB). If men could only be led to believe what Peter preached that day, what mankind calls Christendom would look vastly different than it does.

All the Corinthians who obeyed the gospel were baptized. In writing to them later, Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13, CSB). Note that he says “all.” The Holy Spirit, preaching through inspired men, Paul being one of them, taught baptism and led men to it. That baptism was into the body of Christ, into salvation, into His church. Paul tells us where baptism puts us: “For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ” (Gal. 3:27, CSB). Salvation is found in Christ, not outside Him. Baptism puts one into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).

I have said these things by way of introduction to the topic of this article, the events surrounding the twelve disciples Paul found in Ephesus. These events transpired quite a while after Paul left Corinth, for Paul did some extensive traveling after Corinth (see Acts 18:18–23). On those travels, he did stop briefly in Ephesus after leaving Corinth (Acts 18:19–21), but was not there long before moving on. The events with the twelve at Ephesus happened at a later date, on a return to Ephesus, at which time he was there for three years (Acts 20:31).

Between Paul's first brief stop in Ephesus and his return, Apollos had been there and taught, knowing only John's baptism. The events surrounding the twelve Paul found there seem to have happened upon his arrival at the beginning of the three years he spent there.

The question that arises concerning these twelve men, whom the Bible calls “disciples,” is why they were baptized again—a second time. It might be well to discuss the meaning of the word disciple. Most of the time, when one reads the word disciple in the New Testament, it refers to one who is a Christian. Certainly, a Christian is a disciple, a disciple of Christ, but the words Christian and disciple are not synonyms. The word disciple means “a learner”; it is a person who follows the teaching of another, an adherent of another. One could be a disciple of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, of Christ, etc.

When Paul arrived in Ephesus in Acts 19, the text says he found some disciples. It is implied, correctly and with little doubt, that they were disciples of Christ. However, one can only be a disciple as far as the knowledge of his subject will allow him to be. You can only follow, as a disciple, to the limits of your understanding. The twelve men at Ephesus, obviously, had heard enough about Christ to want to follow Him, but they had not yet heard of baptism into Christ (Matt. 28:19). They were followers of Christ as far as their knowledge would take them. That does not mean they were Christians—not yet. If they were already Christians, why was Paul bothering them?

The next thing that needs consideration is what Paul meant when he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Paul clearly meant the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit that gifted the recipient with miraculous abilities. There is a listing of these abilities, or gifts, found in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11. We know he was asking about that measure of the Holy Spirit because there was no reason to ask a Christian, whom he assumed they were, if they had received the normal measure of the Holy Spirit, for that is granted to all Christians.

This promise to the Christian of the Holy Spirit is first made in Acts 2:38, but we read of it elsewhere as well: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (CSB). “In Him you also—when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you also believed—were sealed in Him with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13, CSB). “Don't you yourselves know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God lives in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16, CSB). Other passages proving the point could be listed.

So we know that Paul wanted to know if these Christians, as he supposed they were, had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. When they replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, he knew something was seriously wrong. How can one be baptized into Christ, thus made a Christian, and not even hear of the Holy Spirit? The baptism Jesus proclaimed that puts one into the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27), the baptism of the Great Commission, is “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, CSB). The word “in” in this passage should be “into”; see the side-margin note in the NAS 1963 Bible. The Greek word "eis" used here means into, signaling a change of relationship. If these men had been baptized correctly, they would certainly have heard of the Holy Spirit. In addition, they would have heard of the promised Holy Spirit given to all who are baptized into Christ.

This brings up a serious question: What must one know to be baptized correctly? That is an issue that has been debated through the years. Must one know it is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it puts one into Christ's church (1 Cor. 12:13—the body being the church; Eph. 1:22–23), or is it sufficient to know only that God commands it and therefore it ought to be done, while being ignorant of its ramifications? One must know what he or she is doing when baptized to be baptized correctly, but to say how much one must know, I would not want to say. I have strong ideas about it, but I reserve them. I could be wrong in my thinking. However, I am informed enough from this account of the twelve in Acts 19 to know that correct understanding matters.

The twelve were originally baptized to obey God, so they thought. That was certainly a good motive, yet it proved insufficient at that time. Many today, without doubt, are baptized for the wrong reasons, and thus we can reasonably be assured their baptisms are ineffective. If I am baptized solely to become a member of a denominational church—a church that did not even exist in New Testament times—that is not the baptism Jesus authorized.

If one says, “My denomination is the New Testament church one reads about in the Bible,” then the next question is, “Why is that church not named in the New Testament?” If your church is called the XYZ Church (denomination), I do not read about a church named XYZ Church in the Bible, so baptism into it is not the same as baptism into Christ's church. But I drift from the main subject of this article, back to it.

Why was the baptism of these men into John's baptism not acceptable? Chronology seems to be the answer. John's baptism was valid for a time, but that time was prior to Jesus' death on the cross. The cross made all the difference in the world—not just regarding baptism, but in everything. Everything changed at the cross. Jesus' shed blood changed the world mankind lives in.

These twelve men had been baptized with John's baptism after Jesus' death on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, mankind passed into the Christian Age. John the Baptist lived, taught, and made disciples in the Mosaic Age. The baptism he performed was of and from God.

“(And when all the people, including the tax collectors, heard this, they acknowledged God's way of righteousness, because they had been baptized with John's baptism. But since the Pharisees and experts in the law had not been baptized by him, they rejected the plan of God for themselves.)” (Luke 7:29–30, CSB)

But it was God's eternal plan to move on into the age of Christ, the Christian Age.

The twelve at Ephesus were not baptized by John the Baptist. Had they been baptized by John, there would have been no need of another baptism. No one baptized with John's baptism before the cross ever needed to be baptized again, for John's baptism was of God and was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), and once one's sins are forgiven, they are forgiven.

But John died before Christ died on the cross. It was a relatively short period between John's death and Christ's death, but during that time people were still living under the Law of Moses, and John's baptism—the one he taught—was still being preached, taught, and practiced by his disciples and remained valid. It is most likely, although not certain, that the twelve had been baptized by Apollos, who was in Ephesus before Paul. It is said of Apollos that he was “an eloquent man who was competent in the use of the Scriptures … instructed in the way of the Lord … teaching accurately … although he knew only John's baptism” (Acts 18:24–25, CSB).

To summarize and clarify, John's baptism, the baptism he taught, was valid only up until the time Jesus died on the cross. Anyone baptized with John's baptism at a later date needed to be baptized into Christ.

We now arrive at the Twelve's rebaptism, if one wants to call it that. It is clear that Paul is not satisfied with their first baptism. What is often overlooked, however, is why Paul seems to be demanding that they be baptized anew. The denominational world is overflowing with people who believe and teach that salvation is unrelated to baptism, teaching salvation by faith alone, and saying baptism is not necessary. If it is not necessary, why is Paul bothering these twelve men with it?

A second point, often overlooked, is that Paul ties belief in Jesus to baptism.

“Paul said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4–5, CSB).

When one believes in Jesus, what follows? Baptism. When you come to believe in Jesus, what do you do? You are baptized. Why do you do it? Because the One you believe—Jesus—taught it (John 3:3–5; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16). You cannot believe in Jesus and at the same time doubt what He taught.

A very similar thing is recorded earlier under Philip's preaching in Samaria in Acts 8. “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them” (Acts 8:5, CSB). “When they believed Philip … both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12, CSB). That is what happens when the true gospel is preached.

When the twelve were baptized correctly under Paul's teaching, the Bible says Paul laid his hands on the men, and the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues. This confirms what was said earlier: when Paul inquired of them about receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2), he was asking about the miraculous measure of it.

Do you believe in Jesus? If so, you know the next step. If these twelve men needed to be baptized, so does every disciple. That is the Great Commission: baptize the disciples (Matt. 28:19). God is no respecter of persons. Those who believe Jesus, believe what He said and taught, and are baptized. No exceptions.

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

Jewish and Catholic Tradition

What is the role of tradition in religion? Is it positive or negative? In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative. I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth, he was living under the Law of Moses. Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity. “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land. He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God. Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition? Obviously, on Jewish tradition, but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source, just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'honor your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets. There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath. The law of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God, and they would hear of nothing else. Scripture alone was not enough. It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions. Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism? You should.

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth. Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time. Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses.

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings. In Gal. 1:14, he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV) This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr

Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20 NKJV) This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man.

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Acts 26:10 NKJV) This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity, but while he was enslaved to religious tradition.

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV) So, we have been warned.  

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions? He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6. To the Corinthians, he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV) To the Thessalonians, he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements? Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching or doctrine as he spoke by the Holy Spirit being an inspired apostle. What else would you call it? A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here. The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.” It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today, but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them.

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.” The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.” So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word, but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition. He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the

Dispersion. One can surely see Peter was not speaking positively of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition -- why? Is it because it cannot be wrong? Why can’t it be wrong? If it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century.

Catholic Tradition

We turn now to tradition in Roman Catholicism.  The reader likely already knows that with Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life. Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life. Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own. The church will tell you what it means. You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church, you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture. If you want to know what scripture means, you must listen to the church. They will tell you.  What is a correct interpretation of a passage? Whatever the church tells you.

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism. Why not? Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that. It is an easy way out of being personally responsible. The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable. You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century. Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity, and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity.

Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived, nor did the man of God, who, after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13, was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life. Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition, whether in Judaism or Catholicism?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition that most people who are not Catholic are unaware of. In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means.

With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down. We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages from the first century. That would not be necessarily so; it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas. When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official. There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years. If these various dogmas came from scripture or the first century, they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity. They came from tradition, Catholic tradition. I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the beginning of Christianity. It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition. The traditional view separates tradition from scripture.  In Catholicism, only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way, “the word of God.” Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God. The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is. I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement, but hear me out. With this second school of thought in Catholicism, all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture, but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation). Thus, they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find. Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.” I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it. Any doctrine in Catholicism has to be either from scripture or tradition, so pick your doctrine and tell us where its origin was.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself. It is not Christianity. I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity, but it long ago ceased to be Christian. So, why are we surprised? Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism? Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3). The scripture teaches there will be a falling away, so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment. As a Catholic, I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament. I claim to believe scripture, so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV) It says my church will fall away, for after all, my church is the only true church, according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation. Why not? There is no one in Protestantism sitting “as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:4). In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided, it is hard to see how that could ever be. And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God? I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics. I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do, it will be said to be infallible, for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

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

Living With One's Conscience

A good conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Without it, there is no peace -- only anxiety, turmoil, and restlessness. Anyone who has ever violated their conscience knows the truthfulness of this statement.

A bad conscience pricks us continually without let-up. It is the perfect tormentor. Day and night, we suffer from its attacks. Wherever we go, it travels with us. We cannot lose it. It is determined to give us no rest or relief.

Rest can only be had at what is generally felt to be a hard price to pay. That price is the shame and humiliation of admitting (confessing) our sin and making whatever restitution, if any, that can be made for it. It is awfully hard to put oneself through that, but that is exactly the price the conscience requires of us before it will let us go free.

I know of a man who went before the church confessing his unfaithfulness. Afterwards, he spoke of what a burden was lifted from his shoulders. The conscience was now clear, and life could move forward with the inner turmoil now gone and peace restored. That is a common reaction from those who finally decide to quit fighting the conscience they have violated and pay the price conscience demands.

The apostle Paul said, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NAS) He made this statement the day after his arrest in Jerusalem. How many of us can say what Paul said? Can you? Can I? My guess is that very few can.

Peter, who denied Christ, could not say it. David, who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, could not say it. Aaron, in making the golden calf, could not say it.

Paul's statement that he had lived in all good conscience before God simply meant that he had never knowingly done anything that, at the time he was doing it, he knew to be in violation of God's law, knew it to be sin while he was doing it. To live then in good conscience before God is to live in such a way as not to knowingly do anything that is in violation of God's will.

There is certainly such a thing as sinning without violating one's conscience, a thing we have to be aware of. Paul is the perfect example. He said, in Acts 22:4, "I persecuted this Way to the death" (NAS), the way being Christianity. Then he says in Acts 26:10, "not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them." (NAS) This was great sin, absolutely, but it was not a violation of his conscience, for at that time he believed with all his heart it was the right thing to do according to his religion, a Jew of the Pharisee sect. (Acts 26:5)

There is probably nothing in a person's life harder to change than their religion, a thing Paul ended up doing. There is so much emotion involved in it, often much family history, friendships, and so on, so that it is very hard to be fair, that is, objective, with the scriptures, so we end up reading them the way we desire them to read versus what they actually say. We need to study the scriptures objectively, but our human emotions will not allow it. Our faith is the correct one just because it has to be that way; there are no other possibilities, at least none we are willing to consider.

Another factor that makes it very difficult for a person to change their religion is that of human pride. How hard it is for any of us to be man enough, as they say, to say we are wrong? We will not even allow the thought. As soon as even a tiny doubt enters our mind, we cast it out as far from us as possible. The degree of humility that is required to admit one has been wrong is very great. It is too much for many to even entertain the thought. The stakes are too high, or so it seems.

But I am drifting away from the subject at hand, so back to it—the conscience. Paul was not the only man in the Bible whose good conscience did not keep him from serious sin. One of the most tragic cases in the Bible was that of the prophet described as "a man of God" (1 Kings 13:1) who was sent by God to Jeroboam to prophecy against the altar on which Jeroboam was planning to make sacrifices to the two golden calves he had made. On his return trip back home, the prophet was met by "an old prophet" whom the Bible says "lied to him" (I Kings 13:18), claiming an angel had spoken to him, countermanding God's original command.

That original command to the younger (we assume) prophet had been, "'You shall eat no bread, nor drink water there; do not return by going the way which you came.'" (1 Kings 13:17 NAS) When the younger prophet, again we assume he was younger, believed what the old prophet told him about an angel countermanding the original command, the assumption being that God himself had sent the angel, he went back with the old prophet and did the very things God had told him not to do. As a result, he was met by a lion on the way back home and lost his life. He disobeyed God's command in all good conscience, believing he was doing God's will.

There are a couple of lessons we ought to learn from this account. First, as it relates to the conscience, this younger (?) prophet sinned in all good conscience. The conscience cannot be our guide. We must strive to have a good conscience for "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23 NKJV), but a good conscience proves nothing about the righteousness of the beliefs one holds to. The Islamic terrorists of our own day have a good conscience. Having a good conscience is no guarantee that you are right in either your thinking or your actions.

Secondly, I believe the young (?) prophet wanted to do what was right and thought he was. His conscience was clean in returning with the old prophet. He wasn't expecting to be lied to by a man of God, by a genuine prophet. One's good conscience and doing what one believes to be right is no guarantee of God's approval. God is a God of truth. He is not a God of lies or of falsehood, no matter who the speaker is (not all who teach error are deliberate liars). This prophet, who sinned and met his death, believed a religious man's lie.

We now live in a time when we are not dependent on what religious men teach us for the simple reason that just about everyone, at least in America, has ready access to God's word, where God speaks directly to us on the printed page. There is no reason we should be led astray by "religious men."

It is obvious, to those who think about it, that few preachers teach the whole truth. Yes, they may teach some truth, most of them probably do, but also sadly, error as well. How many different denominations are there in the world today, all teaching (preaching) something different? I recently heard there are 45,000 denominations, but I have no way of confirming that number. The world is full of these "old prophets," so to speak, who lead people astray.

I do not say they are liars, like the old prophet, but a mistaken preacher can kill you just as quickly as an old prophet if you allow it. Would you not agree also that most teachers of error have a clear conscience, not realizing their error? I will grant them that much sincerity.

We ought to demand of preachers more and more book, chapter, and verse preaching. Just tell us, preferably, far preferably, even to the extent of quoting directly, what the Bible says. Many preachers seem to assume we want to hear what they have to say. Why would we? Why, when we go to services to worship and to hear what God has to say, would we want to hear a man just giving his ideas and opinions?

We must have a clear conscience toward God, but that conscience must be educated in truth, as we have already shown. John says, "Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God." (1 John 3:21 NAS) That then is our goal, a conscience properly trained, with accurate knowledge, clear of conscience wrongdoing. When we have that, we have inner peace.

However, as was first pointed out in this piece, most of us are not in Paul's camp. We cannot say we have never violated our conscience; quite the contrary. In fact, the very nature of temptation and sin leads men into the violation of their conscience and into sin. James says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." (James 1:14-15 NAS)

We generally know when we are sinning. We know when we have been tempted. We know when we are giving in to it. We know that while we are doing it, it is wrong. Can a conscience violated, which is another way of saying a heart that has become impure, be restored to cleanliness again? If not, why did Jesus die? Did he die just for those sinners who were like Paul, or did he die for sinners of every stripe?

When David had sinned with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, the prophet Nathan came to him and confronted him. David knew his sin (2 Sam. 12), so it took but little to convince him of his evil. Psalm 51 is a record of David's reaction when confronted by his sin. Could he ever be restored? Could his conscience ever be made clean again?

Let us listen to a little of what he had to say in prayer to God. "Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me." (Psalms 51:1-3 NAS) Then verse 7, "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (NAS) And, finally, verse 10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." (Psalms 51:10 NAS)

Do you think God did that? Ask yourself why God wanted this passage recorded in holy writ? Why did he want it worded the way it was? For whose benefit was it written?

I think Paul answered that question in Rom. 15:4, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (NAS) Do you not believe along with me that Psalms 51 and the things written therein were for you and me? Do the things written there not give us encouragement?

Can you be forgiven and once again live with a clear conscience? What do you believe the Bible teaches? What do you believe God did with David? Did he forgive him and restore within him a clean heart as David had asked? Do you think David will be in heaven?

What does God require of us when we have violated our conscience and sinned as did David? David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." (Psalms 51:17 NAS)

The teaching of the Bible is not that we can totally forget the past. Paul always remembered what he had done in persecuting the saints unto the death, but he also said unto us, "one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:13b-14 NAS)

Memory will not be erased, but we can put the past behind us and move ahead with confidence that God will forgive us. We can once again walk with a good conscience.

For one like Saul, who became Paul the apostle, one who was not a Christian, we can do as he did. He came to faith in Christ, repented of his sins, and was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) His conscience was now trained correctly, and he could henceforth walk by faith rather than by the traditions of the Pharisees. Had he not obeyed the gospel, he would have violated his conscience, for he now knew the truth.

I am convinced thousands and thousands are walking around even today who know they ought to obey the gospel, for their conscience tells them so. Their conscience is not clear. They are paying a price even now for their disobedience, for the conscience will not be quiet. They are not like Paul, but they could be. It is only a matter of the will, so simple but so hard for so many.

But there are others, Christians already, who have violated their conscience. Like David, who was once a faithful child of God under the Law of Moses, they have violated their conscience by sin. God will have them back and restore to them a clean heart and a clear conscience as they walk on down the road of life, but first, they must make the same decision David made. David wanted to come back. He repented. He prayed to God. He ceased to sin and walked in righteousness. That is what it will take.

A good, clean, clear conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Inner peace is better than inner war. God has left us the choice as to which we have. We get to decide. We can have whichever we prefer. It is our choice.  

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