When Did Obedience Become Legalism

We seem to be living in a time in the present Christian era where people seem to feel that all that matters in Christianity is love and God’s grace, when obedience is seen as legalism, and where it is felt that people do not have to obey biblical commands for salvation except, of course, for the command to believe in Jesus as the Savior.

Grace is made cheap. Live as you like, call yourself a Christian, and God’s grace will cover you. It is said it is what is in the heart, generally defined as the emotions, that counts. Feelings and emotions are defined as love for God. God’s grace will cover a life of sin just so a person believes in God in some abstract sense. I might add, if you doubt this, just attend a few funerals and see if you can learn of any deceased who are not already in heaven based on the conversations you hear and the preaching that is done there.

People talk about love for God all the time. It is in their heart (their emotions). Yet, quote a passage to them like 1 John 5:2–3, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (NKJV), and you immediately have problems, for that is not what they want to hear. It is not how they want love defined. Love is emotion, not obedience, in their way of looking at things.

In 1 Cor. 13 we have Paul discussing love in verses 4–8. In verse 6 of that chapter he says love “does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (NKJV). Iniquity is the opposite of obedience. One can no more join love with iniquity than he can a lamb with a lion. But we have come to believe God’s grace covers everything and obedience is not necessary. We now accept iniquity because we are no longer willing to accept the Bible as the standard of authority for what is holy and right versus what is wrong.

To condemn sin as did John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus is today seen to be unloving, intolerant, and judgmental, and thus unchristian in the minds of many. Yet, in the New Testament, Paul, by the Holy Spirit, commanded Timothy to reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2 NAS) and not go along with or hold his silence in the presence of men sinning. Titus was told not only to rebuke but to do so sharply (Titus 1:13; see also Titus 2:15). The Ephesians were told, thus meaning it is applicable to us as well, to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11 ESV). But today that is seen as sticking your nose in where it does not belong, and we are no longer to call anything short of murder, rape, or robbery, and such like, sin.

Yes, obedience to Bible standards of conduct (commands) is now seen as legalism. Sin is renamed and given polite names or, as is often the case, simply dropped off the radar altogether. Fornication is an example of a sin that has dropped off the radar screen and out of sight. Hardly anyone takes it to be a sin today. It is commonly expected that just about every young person is going to engage in it, and certainly every unmarried adult. It is just taken for granted as being a normal part of society and not a serious sin at all. What happened to the Bible?

Homosexuality has disappeared from the American consciousness as sinful. The majority approve of it and applaud it and gay marriage. To those who object we speak of their intolerance and hate. We call it a civil right. However, the Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20 NKJV). And surely those who read this know the New Testament condemns homosexuality. If not, read 1 Cor. 6:9–10.

Adulterous marriages are celebrated as God-approved despite the Bible’s teaching on adultery. This listing of sins could go on almost endlessly, sins that in our culture are no longer considered sinful despite what the Bible teaches. Sin is no longer considered a serious thing in our culture.

The religiously liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) say God loves all men (true), so we say we can rejoice in Christian fellowship with those actively practicing these and other sins—no repentance required. Of course, in doing so we destroy the Bible as written, but the national desire today is to abandon the Bible altogether as a standard and make our own Bible, even if unwritten.

The way we do that is by making the Bible we have mean anything we want it to mean and abandon all rational exegesis. We simply say it does not mean what it seems to say. It means what we say it means, not what it says. In that, we are much like the Catholics who say Jesus was the only child Mary ever had. Of course, all our conclusions are based on love, love the way we, not God, define it. We are perverting the faith and making up our own religion as did the Jews of Jesus’ day. They were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3 NKJV), and we seem to be doing the same thing.

Jesus said, “But why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46 NKJV). Does anyone have an answer? Love means obedience, and obedience, despite the cry to the contrary, is not legalism.

Did you ever give it thought that if obedience is legalism, Jesus was the biggest legalist of all time? He kept every commandment and never sinned once. He said, “I always do those things that please him” (John 8:29 NKJV). He was obedient to death (Phil. 2:8). He was the only one who ever kept the law of God perfectly, obedient in every detail.

Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, not once. He condemned them for hypocrisy, for not keeping the law, for making commandments and adding them to God’s word and making them of equal force with God’s word, binding them on men. We often today say they were legalists, and I do not object to that designation of them, but I add this for clarification—their legalism was not for God’s law but for the law they had made and added to his law.

Jesus said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19 NKJV).

Yes, in the passage just quoted Jesus was speaking to an audience who were living under the Law of Moses, but where, oh where, have people come up with this modern-day idea that Jesus just does not care about obedience anymore? Put another way, or phrased another way, what has happened to sin? When did it go out of existence? But that is where we are today, and it is an idea that is fairly prevalent among a significant number of people who consider themselves to be Christians.

I give people credit in a place where perhaps some others would not. Some would say we have come to this place because people today are just ignorant of God’s word. Well, there is truth in that, for sure, but why is it so? Is there a shortage of Bibles? No, that is not it. There is a lack of will to read them—that is for sure. And there is a lack of a will to believe them and obey them. Peter said there was such a thing as people who are “willingly... ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5 KJV). If we do not read and study, how can we keep from falling into the category of those who are willingly ignorant?

But, as I said, I am more inclined to give people credit in the knowledge department than some others, believing, for the most part, people do know right from wrong. I believe the cry of “legalism” against the teaching of obedience is in reality a smoke screen to cover up and make an excuse for a life lived for self, a worldly life. It is my life, and I want to live it the way I want to. The claim of being saved solely by love and God’s grace provides the cover one needs for such a life to legitimize it before the public.

We all tend to try to hide the wrong we know we are doing, and one of the best ways of doing that is to legitimize it—get everyone else to think what we are doing is not wrong. Hey, everybody else is doing it—right? How can it be wrong then? The Pharisees of Jesus’ time were full of sin, and yet to the general public they appeared to be righteous. “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men” (Matt. 23:28 NKJV). They had gotten the people of their day to swallow their religion with all the additions and man-made commandments they had made.

The standard for a righteous man has been so lowered over the years that in the public’s eyes, even if you have not worshiped the Lord in a regular assembly of the saints for the past 20 years, you are still headed straight to heaven just so you are a believer.

If you had the opportunity to get a hold of an old church roll book from, say, 100 years ago, you would probably be shocked, as you would see notations made in the margins of people being withdrawn from as per 2 Thess. 3:6: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (NKJV).

Since we today have decided what love is and have taken it out of God’s hands, it is no longer considered to be an act of love to withdraw from sinners who will not repent, even though the purpose was “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5 NKJV). That is about as noble and as loving a reason as one could have, and yet today, if we were to practice discipline in the church by withdrawing fellowship from those living in sin and who will not repent, it would be considered unloving and unchristian even though an inspired apostle commanded it. It would be considered legalism gone wild. Have we made our own religion as did the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers of Jesus’ day?

It is getting very hard to be a preacher today unless you do not mind going along with the crowd. The trouble is the crowd is heading to a hot, hot spot, and the preacher will be going with them if he does not preach against sin. The preacher is to preach the truth and support it, not go along with the crowd.

My whole point in this article is how we have come to the point in faith where the faith we have is no longer associated with obedience, and obedience is now seen as legalism. The truth is disobedience is sin. Obedience is faithfulness. There are far worse things that can happen to a man than to be called a legalist by one who does not want to obey.

“And having been perfected (Jesus—DS), he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV).

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21 NKJV). Do you want to be like Jesus? If so, start condemning sin and be obedient. You will not be working your way to heaven in doing so. You will simply be an obedient Christian, not a disobedient one. Of the two, whom do you think will receive God’s grace on the last day?

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

 

The Washing Of Water By The Word--Baptism and Salvation

Baptism is essential to salvation but there are many non-believers, people who do not believe that. I want to deal with one passage today that affirms this doctrine but which is seldom used because the word baptize or baptism is not found in the passage. The phrase used is “washing of water” as found in Eph. 5:25-27.

Eph. 5:25-27 reads as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (NKJV)

The phrase “washing of water” is a direct reference to baptism. “By the word” signifies the reason for the baptism--God’s word. God’s word directs one to be baptized.

Some think they can be saved outside the church. That cannot happen. Why? Because, as the text plainly tells us, that is what Christ gave himself for. Because Christians are the church, and it is Christians who will be saved.

The Bible teaches the church is the body of Christ, Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18, and “he (that is Jesus--DS) is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) Nowhere does the Bible teach that one can be outside the Savior (his body, the church) and be saved. If you can be outside the Savior and be saved, then you can be outside the church and be saved, but not until then. Is there anyone who thinks they can be saved outside the Savior? If you could be, the Savior would not be needed.

One must be “in Christ” to be saved. We are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27). It is “in Christ” where “all spiritual blessings” are found (Eph. 1:3 KJV). Other translations use the phrase “every spiritual blessing.” If you are not in Christ, you are outside the realm where these spiritual blessings are found.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that Jesus sanctified the body and cleansed it by the washing of water (baptism)--that is what it says; read it for yourself. Since you and I are the church, the body, that is how we are sanctified and cleansed. The word sanctify means to make holy; thus, several modern-day translations use the word holy rather than sanctify in the Ephesian passage (see the NIV, CSB, NLT, and the NRSV). For example, the NIV reads “to make her holy” in Eph. 5:26, with reference to the church.

We are told to “pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14 NKJV) It is essential to be made holy, and that is done by the Lord when we obey him by being baptized based on our faith and repentance. When we do, we become “a holy priesthood.” (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) Of course, holiness must be maintained. We are not to become backsliders and fall away.

Jesus cleansed the church, you and I, by the washing of water--baptism. To argue with that is to argue with an inspired apostle--Paul. If you are thinking that possibly the phrase “washing of water” might mean something else other than baptism, then take a look at 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV) “By one Spirit” is the same as “by the word” in Eph. 5:26, for the word is the mind of the Spirit, the Spirit speaking to us, leading us to faith and obedience.

Paul also tells us elsewhere how we enter this body of Christ, how we enter Christ himself, spiritually speaking. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) See also Rom. 6:3.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that baptism is essential.  Note some things that are true if we fail to be washed of water. If you are not washed by water, then you are not sanctified, not made holy. True, the Bible teaches we are sanctified by a number of things, not just the washing of water, but which one of those number of things given in the Bible by which we are sanctified will you cast aside as of no account on your own authority? Will it be the washing of water? If so, it is, indeed, on your own authority.

The wise man says, if God said it, I believe it, and it is essential to believe and obey to the very best of one's ability. We do not have an option of picking and choosing. We cannot legislate for God. Can you be sanctified without the washing of water, be made holy? Our attitude ought to be that everything that is said concerning sanctification and how it comes is true and essential.

But let us move on, for there is more in the text. If the washing of water is the way Jesus cleansed the church, meaning those who became Christians, and that is what the text says, then if I have failed to be baptized, I have not yet been cleansed. Cleansed of what? What is there to be cleansed of? Sin.

But there is much more to this washing. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of sins and says that those who do those things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He then goes on and says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) “By the Spirit of our God” means the Spirit was involved, but we are not told how he was involved, not here. We are told in the passage that is the subject of this article--Eph. 5:25-27. It was by means of the Spirit working through the word. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). It leads a man to faith and obedience. In their washing, the Corinthians were cleansed as much so as the Ephesians.

Of Christians, the Hebrew writer says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) If a person has not had his body washed with the water of which the Hebrew writer is speaking (baptism), then he is not qualified to draw near. He may well attempt to do it anyway and tell himself he is being successful, but he is at odds with the Hebrew writer.

Peter speaks of how to deal with this evil conscience and rid oneself of it. He says, “there is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism,” which he says is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) That is the man who can “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV), having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience. That is the man who has had his body “washed with pure water.” It is the man who was led by the Spirit.

[As an aside, the Heb. 10:22 passage, quoted above, answers those who say that the word "water" is symbolic and is thus not a reference to water baptism. If they are correct, then the physical body was washed with pure symbolism. When one rejects the truth they will believe about anything.]

There is more. In Acts 22:16, Ananias told Saul to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (NKJV) What was Saul going to be baptized in? Water. What was going to happen as a result? The washing away of sins.

I have heard people who do not understand baptism say things like there is nothing in water that can wash away sins, the idea being that sin is like dirt on the body that can be washed off. Well, no, sin is not like dirt on the body where a little water, soap, and a wash rag will take care of it. But there is something in the baptismal waters that will take care of sin. What? The promise of Jesus, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) If a man is saved, he has had his sins remitted. The promise of Jesus is in the water.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, had a promise in the water. He found out if you want the promise of cleansing, you must get in the water. You can read about his experience in 2 Kings 5.

In America today, among those who call themselves Christians, not many believe what Jesus said. They believe, “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” just as well as he who believes and is baptized. They say they are going to be saved by faith, but have no faith in what Jesus said. I find deep irony in that.

Baptism is essential to salvation just as much so as faith and repentance and the confession of Jesus, but there are non-believers who will neither believe nor obey. They are in God’s hands. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31 NKJV) When you will not obey what God has clearly commanded, it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into his hands.

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

Saved By Jesus Outside The Church

It is not uncommon to hear people express their opinion that organized religion (the church) has nothing to do with salvation; all that matters, it is said, is whether or not one has a personal relationship with Jesus. Some expressed the idea as "Jesus yes, the church no."

I do not know where this "personal relationship with Jesus" language came from for if you type in the phrase in any online Bible concordance you will not get a single return. It is a man-made phrase that is not found anywhere in scripture. I am not fond of terminology that cannot be found in scripture. Why not express biblical concepts in biblical language?

All of that aside, I want to deal with the idea that one can develop this relationship with Jesus on a personal level that will save himself outside the church. If a person means they can be saved outside the Catholic Church, I agree. If they are saying they can be saved outside of a denominational church, I agree. If, however, they are saying they can be saved outside the church one reads about in the Bible and outside of any association whatsoever with other Christians in an organized manner (a congregation) when such association is possible (that is, such congregations exist in the area where one lives) I disagree.

Here is the problem with this whole concept men have that salvation is possible outside the church--God adds to the church every person who is saved. All the saved are in the church and none outside it. That does not mean that every man in the church is saved for backsliding, unfaithfulness, apostasy, and such like enter into the equation. The Bible does not teach once saved always saved. That being said, if you find a saved man, he is going to be found in the church and not outside it.

Scripture is what counts, not what man says, so what does scripture say? It says that "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) This is the church of which Jesus said, "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) If you are saved you cannot help but be in the church for the Lord does the adding at the time one obeys the gospel and he adds only the saved and none who are not saved.

You do not join the church, though many have the misconception they do, but if you obey the gospel in all sincerity of heart the Lord adds you to his church. This adding is to the church universal which consists of all true Christians all over the world wherever they are found and consists both of the living and of those now dead but who died as faithful Christians.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God." (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) He told Timothy he was writing "so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) thus he expected and knew Timothy to be in that house (the church). If you read the book of 1 Timothy you will readily see Paul was not just talking about the universal church. He was instructing Timothy how to conduct himself in an actual organized entity (a church, a congregation) existing on earth. In that entity (an organized church) he gives Timothy instructions on how bishops (or elders, they are one and the same) and deacons are to be appointed (their qualifications) and how widows are to be provided for so that "the church" be not burdened unnecessarily (1 Tim. 5:16 NKJV), etc. The point is that we are talking about the necessity of a congregation and organized religion in what Paul wrote to Timothy.

If you desire to be saved by the blood of Jesus but stay out of the church you are seeking to do the impossible. In Acts 20:17 Paul called for the elders of the church of Ephesus and then encouraged them in Acts 20:28 to "shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood." (NKJV) This church had an actual earthly existence in the city of Ephesus in an organized body of saints (Christians) over which these elders were to shepherd. In the book of Ephesians, Paul says, "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25 NKJV) which is to say he died for it.

Let me ask a question. Could you have lived in the city of Ephesus as a resident back in those days and been saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" while not a member of the church there, the church over which the elders were to oversee or shepherd? In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said to them, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) Who is the "we" in that passage if not the church (the brethren) there? That is who Paul was writing to. But, we know that the brethren there were an organized body overseen by elders (Acts 20:28). Yes, certainly that text has an application beyond just Ephesus, but it certainly includes the Ephesians in the church there.

In Heb. 13:7 we read, "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (NKJV--see also Heb. 13:17, 24) Who are these men who must give an account? It is the same men whom Paul gave Timothy the qualifications to meet (1 Tim. 3:2-7) in order to qualify them as bishops in the church (a bishop and an elder are the same entity in the New Testament). He said, in part, "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5 NKJV) What is the point?

It is this--Christians are to be in organized bodies (congregations) overseen by men Paul was speaking of whom the Bible calls elders, bishops, shepherds, and overseers (all referring to the same men and the same work). How does the man who claims to be saved by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from an organized body of believers (a congregation) obey the injunction given him to obey and be submissive (Heb. 13:7)? By refusing to join in with fellow disciples in such a body, he separates himself from them and disobeys God.

The truth is every Christian is a living stone (see 1 Peter 2:5) in the spiritual house of God, both in the universal church and the church on the local level if he is living faithfully. The church is made of individual members called by Peter "living stones" which he says "are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV)

There was no such thing in the New Testament as a Christian living separate and apart from a local congregation when such a congregation existed. Certainly, the apostles traveled around along with other evangelists and were not tied to a specific location but when they were in a locality and a congregation was established there it is obvious they made themselves a part of it. One cannot read the New Testament and deny that. They did not try and live off by themselves, as Christian hermits, apart from the brethren and claim no fellowship or association with them. That said, an apostle was over an elder in terms of God-given authority.

Look at the epistles. To whom are they addressed? When not to an individual was it not generally the case that it was to a church in a particular locality? It is "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of God which is at Corinth" (2 Cor. 1:1 NKJV), "to the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), "to the saints who are in Ephesus" (Eph. 1:1 NKJV), "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1 NKJV), "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse" (Col. 1:2 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1 NKJV), "to the church of the Thessalonians in God" (2 Thess. 1:1 NKJV).

Since one is not required, according to some, to be a member of a local congregation, an organized church as it is often put, what does one do with the epistles written to these churches? Do the messages contained therein not apply to us since we can be saved, it is said, by "a personal relationship with Jesus" separate and apart from the church? Can we just toss these epistles away?

To whom did Jesus have John write to in Revelation chapters two and three? Was it not to the angels of the seven churches of Asia? The messages were meant for seven churches. We can learn from them even today but at the time they were specific to seven congregations or churches. Read those two chapters. You will see some churches were in pretty bad shape, but Jesus was still interested in them. However, we are told today the church doesn't matter. It mattered to Jesus, so why does it not to the persons who believe all that matters is a "personal relationship with Jesus?"

The church consists of brethren united in faith, worship, labor, and love. One of the great messages of the New Testament is love for the brethren. How do you love the brethren when you want no part of them for they are found in the church and you want no part of the church? How do you encourage them? How do you worship with them? How do you help them when you won't even associate with them long enough to know who they are or what their needs are?

It is a sin to try and be saved by a personal relationship with Jesus separate and apart from the church (from the brethren). "Let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, … for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:24-27 NKJV) One who thinks he has a personal relationship with Jesus while ignoring his brethren and thus being disobedient to God's commands is self-deceived.

It is mission impossible to be saved outside the church. Sardis was an example of a church where few inside it were going to be saved (Rev. 3:4), that is unless they repented, but nonetheless, all in Sardis who were going to be saved were in the church there. Jesus "is the savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18, 24). One is either in that which Jesus is going to save or he is not in it. It is that simple, even black and white.

I make one point of clarification as I am drawing to a close. Sometimes it is not possible, at least for a time, to have membership in a local congregation. Why? It may not exist, the Ethiopian eunuch's situation being an example. Or, the local church may be in apostasy so that to join it would be to promote error of the most serious nature. In such cases the individual makes up the local congregation and the job is to evangelize and establish a body of believers in the area. Every Christian is a part of the universal church and he/she needs to be a part of a local congregation as well if at all possible.

I advocate for a return to New Testament Christianity and that can only be done through restoration. The New Testament is our pattern, our blueprint, for what it takes to make one a Christian and what it takes to remain faithful. The same is true of the New Testament as a pattern and blueprint for the church.

I know many do not believe in the concept of restoration. I would simply say to those people that to be consistent they ought to never again use a blueprint or pattern for anything. Why? Because they have just confessed that to them a pattern or blueprint is worthless.

There is nothing illogical in the concept of restoration. The problem is not in the concept. The problem is that New Testament Christianity is a radical religion that places stringent demands upon humanity and few want to be bound by its cords. Men would rather do it their way than God's way. If we lived in Noah's time and place we would tell God we will build the ship as long as we do not have to use your pattern and can build it the way we want to.

The concept of restoration is right. It is the right idea. There is a pattern God has given and we ought to try and live by it both as individuals and as organized congregations.

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

Saul's Conversion--How Justified By Faith

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who was soon to be known as Paul the Apostle, is one of the most interesting accounts of conversion to Christianity found in the Bible. One can read about Paul's conversion in 3 different accounts given in the book of Acts--Acts 9:1-19, 22:1-16, 26:9-20. Before his conversion Saul of Tarsus was a passionate enemy of Christianity, fervent in his zeal to destroy the faith, making his conversion even more dramatic. How bad a man was Saul?

In Acts 9:1 we read about Saul "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord." (NKJV) If it was a thing Saul was still doing it was a habitual thing with him. This was said at a time when he was setting out to Damascus to find Christians he could bind and bring back to Jerusalem for punishment (Acts 9:2). Paul says of himself, "I persecuted this Way (Christianity--DS) to the death." (Acts 22:4 NKJV) He says, testifying against himself, "Many of the saints I shut up in prison ... and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them." (Acts 26:10 NKJV)

Will God have a man like this, a man this evil? Saul clearly had personal responsibility for the death of Christians. Christians died because of his actions whether he ever personally cast a stone to put them to death or not. But, the answer to the question of whether or not God will have a man this bad is easily answered.

The first people the gospel was ever preached to, the Jews in Jerusalem, were guilty of putting Jesus the Son of God to death. When Pilate wanted to release Jesus they would have none of it (John 19:12). They wanted him crucified. Peter confronts them with their guilt over this matter in Acts 2:23. The good news is that "Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6 NKJV) and thus as a result of Peter's preaching on the Day of Pentecost faith was created, about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41) responded to the preaching, obeyed Peter's command to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and were forgiven.

Would God forgive Saul? Most certainly! Paul later says, "But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life." (1 Tim. 1:16 NLT) The NLT (New Living Translation) is not a literal translation, but I believe it is an accurate rendition of the meaning of this verse and makes it easy to understand what Paul is saying.

Paul considered himself to be chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) and said he was "not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:9 NKJV) He said as all Christians must say, "By the grace of God I am what I am." (1 Cor. 15:10 NKJV) We must all say I am saved by the grace of God; I am what I am (assuming we are doing our best to be what God would have us to be) by the grace of God. "For by grace you have been saved through faith." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Thus far we have seen the kind of man Saul of Tarsus was before his conversion and also the change of attitude and heart as a result of his conversion, but what of Saul's conversion itself? The word preached was having no effect upon him. He would have none of it and to preach it in his presence would have meant as a minimum imprisonment if he could affect it at all. Certainly, Saul had heard of Christ but wanted none of him or his message. He rejected Christ and yet Christ intervened directly in his life for a purpose--see 1 Tim. 1:16 quoted above.

It took a miracle to convert Saul of Tarsus. Without Jesus appearing directly to him and speaking with him on the road to Damascus there appears to have been little to no likelihood of Saul of Tarsus ever being converted, but the question of interest to us in this article is when in Saul's conversion was he justified by faith. Certainly, there is no doubt that this miraculous wonder Saul experienced, a light from heaven (Acts 9:3, 22:6) brighter than the sun (Acts 26:13) surrounding him and his party and a voice out of heaven telling him it was Jesus speaking to him (Acts 9:5, 22:8, 26:15) totally destroyed unbelief in Saul's life and that instantaneously.

Likewise, there can be no doubt repentance was immediate. Saul immediately became submissive to the will of God. He was told directly by Jesus that he (Saul) was a persecutor of the one who spoke to him--Christ (Acts 9:4, 22:8, 26:15). He was blinded. This was no time for rebellion against the God who was speaking out of heaven nor was there any inclination on Saul's part to be rebellious. I think we all understand that clearly. Saul's only response after knowing it was Jesus who was speaking was, "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10 NKJV)

Virtually every denomination in the land according to their idea of what it means to be justified by faith has to have Saul saved right then and there. He has all the faith any man will ever have. He is most certainly penitent. Nevertheless, Jesus' response to Saul's question, "What shall I do, Lord," is "Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do" (Acts 22:10 NKJV) or as recorded in Acts 9:6, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (NKJV) Does must mean must?

Jesus sent the man Ananias to Saul in the city of Damascus to tell Saul those things which were appointed for him to do. One wonders what it was Ananias had to tell Saul. Was it what Saul's mission was to be? No! How do I know? I know because Saul had already been told that by Jesus on the Damascus road. Read Acts 26:16-18. He was told he was being made a minister, to be sent to the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light. It is true Ananias did reiterate what Jesus had already told Saul (Acts 22:14-15) but that was all it was--a retelling of what Saul had already been told by Jesus directly.

The best way to find out why Ananias was sent to Saul is to read what Jesus and Ananias had to say about it. Jesus said it was so Saul "might receive his sight." (Acts 9:12 NKJV) Ananias said Jesus "has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9:17 NKJV) The only other comment we have on why Ananias was sent to Saul is found in Acts 9:6 and Acts 22:10 both quoted two paragraphs above.

So what was it that Saul was told by Ananias that he (Saul) was appointed to do that Saul did not already know from having heard it from Jesus himself? Was it a specific geographic area he was to be sent to in order to begin his ministry? If so, there is no mention of it in the scriptures. There was but one thing at that specific point in time he was told by Ananias that he was appointed to do. "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV)

But, wait, that cannot be. He was justified by faith alone when he was converted on the road to Damascus. Says who? Did your Bible tell you that or was it your pastor? Perhaps it was your religious heritage that told you. Saul was certainly justified by faith, but when and where is the matter to be decided, not just assumed. Now I do not debate for a single second that Saul's heart was changed on the road to Damascus, but did that change his state is the question?

Let me illustrate. A young man and a young woman begin keeping company with one another and fall in love. They become fully committed to one another and to no other. Their faith in one another and love for one another become as solid as it can get. Yet, the marriage date is down the road a few weeks. Their hearts have been changed, but not their status, not until the marriage ceremony is performed.

Christians are married to Christ. "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7:4 NKJV) But, one is not married until he/she is married despite the feelings of the heart. Baptism seems to be the marriage ceremony (so to speak) of the disciple with Christ.

Paul himself says we die in baptism (Rom. 6:4) and walk in newness of life upon our baptism; read all of Rom. 6:1-8. He says Christ cleansed the church "with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing of water is certainly baptism. One might ask cleansed the church of what, but the answer is obvious--sin. Was Paul ever washed in water and cleansed of sin? Ananias told him to be (Acts 22:16), and the Bible says he was (Acts 9:18). When one has been cleansed of sin, his status with God has been changed. His state has changed. He is now a Christian.

A very close relative of mine used to say there was nothing in water to cleanse from sin. One might just as well say there was nothing in water to cleanse Naaman of leprosy either (see 2 Kings 5). But, you see, when God tells you to do something saying you will receive a certain blessing upon acting by faith and doing as he says, you will get the result you seek by such faith and obedience. The God who made the world is able to make good on his promises.

The real key to water for both Naaman, Saul, you, and me is nothing in the water itself (other than God's promise--God's promise is there), but God acting on our behalf when we act by faith upon the command he gave. To Naaman it was the promise of the healing of a physical disease upon dipping 7 times in the Jordan River. For you and me it is the promise of the remission of sins upon baptism. "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Jesus, John 3:5 NKJV)

Paul most certainly was justified by faith, but Paul knew when that happened and if we would read the things Paul wrote on the subject and would consider them as closely as we should we would realize it as well. "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5 NKJV) The washing here is baptism, and it is called the washing of regeneration, which means (the word means) rebirth, thus a washing resulting in a new birth.

The old Saul, the man of sin, died to sin (Rom. 6:2) when he was baptized into Christ's death (Rom. 6:3), having been crucified with him (Rom. 6:6). Paul says, "If we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him" (Rom. 6:8 NKJV), but we died with Christ by being "baptized into his death." (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) When we are baptized on the basis of faith, we come up out of the water to "walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) We have been born again, born of water and the Spirit (John 3:3, 5).

One really ought to also consider Saul's state of mind prior to Ananias' arrival on the scene. He was not yet an inspired man. He knew he had been told to go into Damascus and wait for further instruction, and he knew of the vision he had of "a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight." (Acts 9:12 NKJV) When Ananias does come, he tells Saul that Jesus has sent him (Acts 9:17). Saul has no problem believing this because it corresponds with the vision he has had and also because of what he had been told by Jesus himself on the road to Damascus. He is expecting further enlightenment from God and knows God had told him in a vision a man was coming called Ananias.

Now here is the point. Is Saul in any frame of mind to doubt the message that Ananias delivers to him? To ask is to answer. When Saul was told to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins, did Saul doubt he had sins to be washed away? Did he believe, at that point in time, that baptism was just a figure, a symbol, or a representation of a salvation already received? Now be honest with yourself before you answer that. A man comes from God and gives you this message and you know full well he was sent from God and you are going to do what--doubt him and his message? I don't think so!

Here is a point that is often overlooked as it relates to justification by faith and baptism, tying them together, and which pretty much proves the point I am trying to make relating to Saul's conversion. Speaking of the baptism taught and practiced by John the Baptist, the Bible says, "The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (by John--DS)." (Luke 7:30 NKJV) In Mark 11:30, Jesus asks the question, "The baptism of John--was it from heaven or from men? Answer me." (NKJV) This was said by Jesus to those who confronted him in the temple. Now watch closely as the Bible describes their thinking as they contemplate a response to Jesus. "And they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Why then did you not believe him?' " (Mark 11:31 NKJV) This shows that one who believed was baptized. One who did not believe was not baptized. Those who did not believe and obey were certainly not justified by faith, and it has always taken faith to save a man.

Now apply the same reasoning to the baptism Jesus gave as a part of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16). Is one going to be so daring as to claim he is justified by faith all the while disbelieving and disobeying Jesus on the subject of baptism? Jesus commanded baptism (Matt. 28:19), promised that those who believed and were baptized would be saved (Mark 16:15-16), and said that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV). If a man sinned and was condemned for not believing and obeying the baptism taught by John, then one must remember one far greater than John is found in Jesus the Son of God. A man was not justified by any kind of faith while rejecting John's baptism. Is it now somehow different with Jesus' baptism? I would hate to have to make that kind of argument, but it is the very argument a man must make who believes justification by faith has nothing to do with baptism and is not essential to salvation.

I have one other question to ask, then I bring this article to a close. The Bible says one reason Ananias was sent to Saul was that he might be "filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9:17 NKJV) My question is this--what part did Ananias have to play in that? Only Jesus could baptize men with the Holy Spirit. True, the apostles had the power to lay hands on others and impart spiritual gifts, but only Jesus could baptize in the Holy Spirit. So, the question remains what role did Ananias have to play in that? He was not an apostle, had no power to impart spiritual gifts, and he had no power to baptize a man with the Holy Spirit.

His role was this: he told Saul what to do to become a Christian. Saul had faith, had repented, was willing to confess Jesus, but had not yet been told about taking the final step into Christ--baptism. It is Christians that God gives the Holy Spirit to. The only time in Christian history (which is Pentecost onward) a non-Christian was baptized with the Holy Spirit was the case of Cornelius and his household, and there was a specific reason behind that just as there was a specific reason God directly intervened to make Saul a believer and convert him. Ananias helped Saul be filled with the Holy Spirit by telling him what else God had appointed for him to do, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) When that was done, Saul had put away the old man and put on the new man (the Christian man), and the Holy Spirit was given.

You say, how can I be sure? Ask yourself some questions. What was keeping Jesus from filling Saul full of the Holy Spirit on the road to Damascus? Since Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit directly from heaven (day of Pentecost and the apostles, Cornelius and his household), what does he (Jesus) need Ananias for? Why wait on Ananias? There was only one reason. Saul needed to hear the completion of the first gospel sermon ever preached by man (Acts 2:38)--Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Peter was not there to preach it, but Ananias was. He needed to be told that he had sins that needed to be remitted or, as Ananias phrased it, washed away and needed to be told how to do that. He needed to be cleansed in God's sight. Then the Holy Spirit could be given. After his resurrection, Jesus never preached directly to man about salvation, but as Paul would say later, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels." (2 Cor. 4:7 NKJV) Ananias was such a vessel.

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