Philip And Peter Preaching "The Way"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel compelled to ask this question in closing. Why if Peter preached this, why if Philip preached this, Holy Spirit-inspired men, why is it not preached this way in every pulpit in the land today? It seems we have a gospel today that has no water in it. What happened to baptism? It seems many today believe a different gospel than the one preached by Philip and Peter.

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

How Does One Interpret Scripture

Today is June 25, 2014. As everyone knows, federal judges all over the country are declaring state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. It happened here in Indiana this week and I believe also in the state of Utah. One other thing happened this week related to this issue that should cause embarrassment and concern to all who believe the scriptures.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which was in 2011 the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to redefine marriage and allow its pastors to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It now joins the United Church of Christ in its support of same-sex marriage.

In doing some follow-up reading on this event I ran across an article by a pastor of the denomination, a man by the name of Sheldon Steen. Let me quote a little of what Mr. Steen had to say about the changes that were made. He said, "My deepest prayer is that this moment will become for us like Peter's rooftop experience in Acts 10. That we will all be able to affirm together the words of God to Peter, 'What God has made clean, you must not call profane.'"

One wonders when and where God made clean homosexual marriage. Where is the scripture that teaches that? Why did Mr. Steen not give us the scripture that teaches that?

But this brings up an issue more troubling than gay marriage—how does one exegete (interpret) scripture correctly? Listen to what the New Testament says about homosexuality:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom. 1:24-27 NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Tim. 1:9-10 NKJV)

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude v. 6-7 NKJV)

Jude speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying they were an example. The "strange flesh" Jude speaks of that the people of those cities went after was without doubt that of a homosexual nature. When two angels who appeared as men came to Lot in the city of Sodom, the men of the city surrounded Lot's house, "And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.'" (Gen. 19:5 NKJV) Go back to the OT account in Genesis 18:16-19:29 and read it, then read again also Rom. 1:24-27.

When you read the words of Jesus in the New Testament, you will hear him speak of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? They were as Jude, speaking by the Holy Spirit, says—examples of wrongdoing and God's punishment. One will note in reading what Jesus had to say that no one questions him about it. It was a well-known fact among all the Jews what had happened to both Sodom and Gomorrah and why. They became a sort of standard for evil and God's judgment against such evil. No explanation was needed. All knew about it. For passages where Jesus mentions either or both Sodom and Gomorrah, see Matt. 10:15, 11:23, 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29.

Now how can Mr. Steen, in view of these passages, say God has made clean homosexual relationships? How does one exegete scripture to come up with that conclusion? This is more troubling than the issue of gay marriage, for it carries over into how one exegetes scripture on a whole host of other biblical doctrines. Can one no longer believe what plain passages of scripture teach on a doctrine or behavior?

I know the emphasis today in religious circles is on grace and God's love, not on obedience. Jesus said, however, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV) What if one does not keep Jesus' commandments? What if one willfully and knowingly breaks his commandments and that is his/her practice throughout life? I am not speaking of occasional lapses into sin, for all sin in one way or another from time to time (no human being is perfect), but rather I am speaking of living a life of sin such as is the case in gay marriage.

If it is possible for a person to read plain, unambiguous texts from scripture and yet reject them and declare God has changed his mind (is this not what Pastor Steen has done?) then what good at all is the Bible as a guide? I am as serious as can be. In such a scenario we cannot know what the Bible is telling us. It does not mean what it clearly states. Where does that leave us?

I suspect the answer to those who would respond would run something like this, "the Spirit leads us." Leads us to what is my question? Does it lead us to reject the scripture itself, the scripture the Spirit gave us? If that is the case we have the Spirit in conflict with himself. Seems to me we need to try the spirits and see which comes from God. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV) The only way I know how to do that is by the word of God. What does it say?

One ought to read again 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which I quoted above. I have a question to ask about it, and you might want to give it a shot and try and answer it. That passage gives a list of those who cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If homosexuals can now inherit the kingdom of God, I am talking about practicing homosexuals, then why not fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc., also mentioned in that passage?

Some think a legal (according to the law of the land) marriage ceremony would make a homosexual relationship holy. If a homosexual marriage is acceptable to God, so is an adulterous one. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9 NKJV) One can live in homosexuality just as much as in adultery, and neither is scriptural; both are sinful.

God never condemned a sexual union between a man and a woman, but he did regulate it and make it dependent upon being married with both parties to the marriage being scripturally eligible for such a marriage. That cannot be said of a sexual union of two people of the same sex. In fact, God declared such a union an abomination (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). We no longer live under the Law of Moses, and no one is advocating putting to death practicing homosexuals, but the Leviticus passages do show us how God has felt about homosexual unions in the past. Combine that with the passages I have quoted from the New Testament above and one sees, who is willing to see, God's view of the matter.

Those who desire to please God are going to have to make a choice. Are they going to be guided by the word of God or by the opinions of men? I would say to Mr. Steen, who implies that God has cleansed the homosexual marriage relationship, to prove it from the scriptures. Tell me why the scriptures I have quoted are of no account.

Every day it is becoming harder for men to stand up for the written word of God. People no longer hold it in the high esteem they once did. It is not uncommon to hear not just the word of God but God himself being attacked, and Christians are being accused of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance.

We live in a world where the goal seems to be no boundaries on behavior, no moral judgments. On judgment day we will not be judged based on society's standards or based on what a federal judge has decided. The real judge will sit on the bench that day.

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

 

Faith And Baptism In Paul's Preaching At Philippi

How does a person become a Christian? What does it take to make a person a Christian (a saved individual)? Over the years there has been an enormous amount of debate over this very question. It is a question that can only be resolved by seeing what the Holy Spirit-inspired apostles preached, taught, and practiced as they went out into the world preaching the gospel.

In this article, I want to take a look at the apostle Paul and what he taught and practiced in making Christians in the city of Philippi as recorded in Acts 16:12-34. We have in that chapter two conversions made by Paul—that of Lydia (Acts 16:12-15) and that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34). We begin with Lydia.

The story of Lydia's conversion is so short we can quote all scripture has to say about it here:

"And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us." (Acts 16:14-15 NAS)

We are not told exactly what Paul said in his sermon, but we know he preached at least the following: (1) Man as a sinner in need of salvation, (2) Jesus as Lord and Savior, (3) Faith in Jesus, (4) Repentance, and (5) Baptism.

We can glean a lot about Paul's preaching from Lydia's statement to Paul and Silas, "if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay," (Acts 16:15 NAS) and then making logical deductions from their response to her invitation by accepting it. The things then that Lydia did were the things that made her faithful in Paul and Silas' eyes.

Certainly, they would not have judged her "faithful to the Lord" without faith in the Lord, which required an expression of the same (confession of Jesus—Rom. 10:9) in order for them to know of her faith. Baptism was both an expression of a penitent heart (indicating repentance) and a response to Paul's preaching (to a command given in that preaching). If he didn't preach baptism, how did she know about it? If he preached it, then it is a part of gospel obedience, or else he preached something other than just the gospel. The text says, "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14 NAS) and thus her baptism was a response to the things spoken by Paul.

Lydia's actions indicated to Paul and Silas that she had been "faithful to the Lord." I have a question to ask. What if Lydia had refused baptism? Many say it is not essential to salvation and is not a part of gospel obedience. Would she then have been considered to have been "faithful to the Lord" had she done that? Paul preached it, but she refused it, in which case it could not be said that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Is she saved in such a state? Those who exclude baptism as a part of the gospel ought to think on this.

A little later in the same city, Paul and Silas find themselves in prison when an earthquake occurs freeing them and all the other prisoners if they so chose to flee (Acts 16:26). The Philippian jailer, trembling with fear, comes in and falls down before Paul and Silas (Acts 16:29), brings them out, and asks them the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NAS) The entire conversion account follows:

"And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." (Acts 16:31-34 NAS)

Did Paul preach faith in Jesus? We know he did. Did he preach baptism as a part of faith in Jesus? We know he did. Again, if Paul did not preach baptism, where did the Philippian jailer get the idea to be baptized and why at "that very hour of the night?" It was around midnight when the earthquake hit (Acts 16:25); it is getting late; the jailer has duties to attend to with the other prisoners; and this cannot be the most convenient time to be baptized if baptism does not matter and is not part of the gospel.

It is said of the Philippian jailer that he believed in God (Acts 16:34) after, not before, he was baptized. Baptism is obedience to the command of God, but it is more. It is also a test of faith. Do you believe in Jesus, who said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved?" (Mark 16:16 NAS) To believe in Jesus is to take him at his word; it is to believe his word.

Paul received "grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name's sake." (Rom. 1:5 NAS) The gospel is not just facts to believe but also acts to obey (repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism). The gospel must be "obeyed" if one is to avoid the vengeance of Jesus at his second coming (read 2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV). Both Lydia and the Philippian jailer exercised the obedience of faith in being baptized.

Those who believe faith excludes baptism, who believe baptism is no part of faith, who believe Paul taught a justification by faith that excluded baptism in Romans, ought to look closely at Paul's actual practice. Jesus taught, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS) Do you think Paul might have taught that as well? Do you think "believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved," as Paul and Silas told the jailer, might include believing what Jesus says?

Those so concerned with Paul's teaching in Romans, erroneously misconstruing it to exclude baptism as essential to salvation, ought to look closely at Acts 16 and look over Paul's gospel preaching in Philippi. When that is done, it would be good to go back and reread Rom. 6:1-8 and consider carefully what Paul says there about baptism. It would be good to remember also that Paul took twelve men in Ephesus and had them baptized (Acts 19:1-7). Why?

Of Paul's preaching at Corinth, it is said, "many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." (Acts 18:8 NAS) Paul did not do much of the actual baptizing at Corinth personally, but his preaching led his associates and others to do it. His job was to preach, but, as has clearly been seen at Philippi, the preaching he did included baptism as a part of the gospel. Paul's gospel included faith and baptism as a part of gospel obedience. Do not be led astray by those who teach otherwise, for it is the obedience of faith that saves. Faith without obedience is dead.

Paul's practice also ought to throw light on his statement in 1 Cor. 1:17 how that Christ did not send him to baptize. No, that could be done by anyone, but not anyone could preach the gospel with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and confirm it when needed by signs and miracles. Paul almost always traveled with companions, fellow workers, who could do the actual baptizing. Paul never minimized the need for baptism for the forgiveness of sins. His preaching led to baptism time and time again.

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

On Christian Wars

Christians, God's children, have for years taken a beating by those who make the claim that Christians have been responsible for religious wars that killed thousands of people during the Crusades and in Europe itself during the Middle Ages. There never was any truth to it and never will be.

Just because a Catholic claims to be a Christian does not make him one. Just because a Protestant makes the claim to be a Christian does not make him one. Neither Catholics nor the majority of Protestants are Christians. Neither group has been willing to accept what the New Testament teaches that it takes for a person to become a Christian. I will deal with each group in this article in due time. Until then I ask the reader to use a little reason, a little common sense.

Name one passage in the New Testament that teaches that a Christian ought to organize with other Christians and go to war and kill those of another religion in order to establish or defend the faith in a geographic locality. Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36 NKJV) Servants of Christ do not fight physical battles on behalf of the kingdom, a kingdom not of this world.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12 NKJV) Christians battle with a spiritual weapon, the sword of the spirit which is the word of God (Eph. 6:17).

Jesus told the one who sought to protect him by physical force at the time of his arrest, the one who used his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, to "Put your sword in its place." (Matt. 26:52 NKJV)

And we all know the multitude of passages in the New Testament teaching us to love our fellow man, to be kind and tender-hearted, longsuffering and forbearing, and yet we seemingly are unable to put two and two together. Would true Christians in the tens of thousands voluntarily offer to go to war to destroy pagans? Do we not know the Bible teaches we are to teach and convert them rather than destroy them?

And yet what is so apparent is not seen by us for we have come to fully accept a perverted gospel as being the genuine thing. Paul dealt with a perverted gospel in the book of Galatians but we act as though that was a one-time historical event and the gospel has never been perverted since then.

What I have said above is simply reason and common sense. If you have ever read your New Testament you know these things are true. Do you really think a true Christian could call for such wars and true Christians answer the call to arms for such wars? Let us go kill the pagans. Do you believe that? You might subdue by force of arms those of another religion but you could not convert them that way, not convert them to Christianity. One can only become a Christian by genuine faith and sincerity of heart. Force of arms cannot change hearts.

The Catholic Church is not the New Testament church and the Catholic religion has nothing to do with Christianity. The Catholic Church cannot exist without going outside the pages of the Bible for authority and when they do so that authority comes from mere men. The New Testament knows nothing about Popes, praying to Mary, indulgences, burning people at the stake, authority residing in the church, or a thousand and one other things practiced by the Catholic Church either today or in days gone by. When you go outside the Bible, specifically the New Testament, for authority you are no longer a Christian.

I remind the reader it historically was the Catholic Church that sought to have the Bibles burned and kept out of the hands of the average man and woman. Now I ask you, do you think the God of heaven looked with favor on that and was behind it? Burn God's word! I am sure He approved that. Of course, when you exclude God that leaves you in charge, mere men exalting themselves as though they were God. Look at us; we are the authority now.

The Catholic hierarchy reminds one much of the scribes and Pharisees of New Testament times. "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:5-9 NKJV)

Verse 9 certainly has no meaning to a Catholic—"do not call anyone on earth your father." The Pope even makes the claim to speak for God when he speaks, as they call it, ex cathedra. When one researches the history of Catholic popes he will find many who were far, far from righteous by any standard you might want to use. But, when you can convince people that the Bible is an insufficient guide and that only you (the Catholic hierarchy) can lead them spiritually you can pretty much develop your religion any way you desire and if it profits you well you deserve it, don't you? You are worthy, are you not?

This is not an attack on the average Catholic man or woman. Catholicism is basically a religion one is physically born into, an inherited religion, and in that sense far more like Judaism than Christianity. One is not born again (John 3:3-5) into the Catholic Church. This is not to say one cannot be converted to Catholicism but when he is that is exactly what has happened—he was converted to Catholicism, not to Christianity.

If one has never known anything else or been exposed to anything else, it is not a strange thing that he takes for granted what he has been taught from childhood. And who can help what he is born into? (This is not to say no one ever converts to Catholicism but only that the vast majority are born into it.)

However, when one gets older he or she does become responsible before God. John said, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV) There will be some, maybe many, who will say I am one of those false prophets because of the things I have written here but you know what, they will have to go outside of the pages of the Bible for their proof.

There is not a Catholic on earth that can take the New Testament and the New Testament alone and get today's Catholic Church out of it. I venture even further—they know better than try and will not try. They live not by what the Bible says but by what the Catholic hierarchy has handed down from one generation to the next, Catholic tradition, and that is outside the pages of the New Testament. They thus become their own authority and have convinced people it is God's will that it be so.

However, Protestants have their own problems and it centers primarily around one thing. The most of them are wedded to the idea that a man is saved by faith alone and that the new birth, born of water and the spirit, has nothing to do with becoming a Christian. The new birth involves baptism in water for the remission of sins. That they will not accept. Water to them is only symbolic.

It was not symbolic to Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38 for he said it was for the remission of sins. I have said it before and say it here again—you will search hard and long to find a denominational preacher (a Protestant) that will get up in the pulpit and preach what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and that only. He will not preach it because he does not believe it.

It doesn't matter what Peter said about baptism saving us (1 Peter 3:21), it does not matter what Ananias told Saul concerning arising and being baptized and washing away his sins (Acts 22:16), and it doesn't even matter what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (NKJV) We will just explain it all away. It does not matter, none of that will be sufficient for a Protestant immersed in the faith-only doctrine.

Modern Protestant doctrine, which I have been describing, evolved out of the Reformation but in the earliest days of the Reformation there was not that much difference between Protestants and Catholics on who was a Christian. Those early religious wars between the groups were more about heresy, which side was guilty of heresy. It was about that and about who got to rule, about power, and who had the authority. Each religious war had its own specific motivation.

My point though is that neither of the two parties involved were New Testament Christians based on what the New Testament teaches about the subject. Thus they were not Christian wars they were involved in. How can one be a Christian without obeying the gospel?

What does the New Testament teach a person must do to become a Christian? A person must come to have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. Heb. 11:6, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 8:24, John 11:26-27, and a whole host of other passages far too numerous to mention all teach this.

The Bible also teaches that a man must repent of his sins. Faith alone will not save one (John 12:42, James 2:19, James 2:24). The Bible teaches it is repent or perish, "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3 NKJV) "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Luke 5:32 NKJV) See the following passages—Acts 26:20, 2 Cor. 7:10, 2 Peter 3:9, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 17:30.

A man then must confess his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world. Rom. 10:9-10, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (NKJV)

Those in John 12:42-43 were condemned for this very failure, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (NKJV)

Timothy "confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." (1 Tim. 6:12 NKJV) Why? Because God required it and because no man can be baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) who is a non-believer. It cannot be known that you are a believer unless you confess it.

Jesus confessed his deity on more than one occasion but one such occasion was in Mark 14:61-62, "But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Jesus said, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (NKJV) This is the confession (that is the truth contained in the confession) upon which the church is built contrary to Catholic doctrine which says it was Peter.

When Peter made the confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) that foundational truth is that upon which the church was built. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) That foundation is solid only because Jesus was and is the Son of God. Jesus, not Peter, was the rock the church was built upon.

Finally, to become a Christian, or as the Bible sometimes phrases it, a new creation, one must be baptized into Christ. Outside of Christ there is no salvation for he is the Savior of the body and that body is his body, the church. (Eph. 1:22-23, 5:23) There is not a man on earth who can find a Bible passage that teaches how a man enters that body other than through baptism. "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV)

Rom. 6:3, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (NKJV) "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) What body, the body of Christ. Inside Christ there is salvation. Inside Christ there is the remission of sins. Thus Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38 told those believers in the crowd that day to "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (KJV)

This put them inside the body of Christ of which he is the Savior. The reader might ask himself one question. How is one baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38, if Jesus Christ never commanded it? It would be impossible. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) Jesus also commanded it in Matt. 28:19-20. Protestants rephrase Mark 16:16 in their teaching to say he who believes and is not baptized will be saved, or at least that baptism makes no difference which is to say the same thing.

Yes, Catholics say they baptize—baptize infants. No infant has ever needed salvation for they have no sin nor are they conscious of such nor can they be. In Catholicism, you can be a Catholic and not have faith—the case with infants. You cannot be a Christian without faith. Furthermore, sprinkling is not now and never has been baptism, unless one wants to go outside the pages of the New Testament and get his authority for sprinkling from man rather than God. Baptism is immersion and the word itself means that very thing.

Yes, there were many religious wars killing thousands upon thousands in history but we ought to cease placing liability on Christians for them as Christians had nothing to do with them. Do not blame God's own people or else you may someday be held accountable for your false charges against his people.

Finally, I make this point. There is a difference between fighting to defend one's home and family from aggression and destruction versus starting a war to conquer and destroy and have your way politically, religiously, or any other way. Christians have never engaged in the latter.

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