Philip The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church. He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need. The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be "men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom." (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40. Of Stephen it is said he "did great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6:8 NKJV) Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13. The people of Samaria "heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." (Acts 8:6 NKJV) Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip, "was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done." (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power? How was it granted to them and why? Was it by the laying on of the apostles' hands? We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18). Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6; read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology. However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us. Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit. We just don't know.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3). It was, on occasion, an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task, such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. I have always wondered how Philip's daughters who prophesied came to have that gift. Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, "I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17) He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this. See also Acts 2:18. Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer. It reads, "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them." (Acts 8:16 NKJV) That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands. I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts – Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32, and Agabus in Acts 21:10. Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles' hands? How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27? Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6), but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands? That is the question.

When Paul came to Ephesus in Acts 19 and found twelve disciples there, he asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (Acts 19:2 NKJV) If the only way to receive the Holy Spirit was by the laying on of the hands of an apostle, why ask this question? The answer would have automatically been no. Paul was the first apostle to ever come to Ephesus.

The Corinthians were to "desire spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and "earnestly desire the best gifts" (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26). But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them. How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them, if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted? Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to "pray that he may interpret." (NKJV) Interpretation of tongues was a spiritual gift, if it was to come, that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems. The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle. Again, so it seems to me.

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39). Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him. Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts? How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven? Did the eunuch have Philip's sermon memorized so he could teach others? He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized well enough without total recall, but one does wonder. It is certain he would have needed a spiritual gift to proclaim more than the first principles of Christianity to his countrymen.

The point I am getting at is that I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles, at his discretion, during the infancy age of the church. I am certainly not denying the apostles power to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18). The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact that the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed. Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age, and for all time, which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the Spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error? What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles? The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus' signs to create belief. "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31 NKJV) So, the signs Jesus performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm that the word preached was indeed the truth and from God. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today, for they are no longer needed. Once a truth has been confirmed, how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it? Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder. They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders, and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip's ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria. The biblical text says, "And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." (Acts 8:6 NKJV) And then, "When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." (Acts 8:12 NKJV) We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians. However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind, for Philip, not being an apostle, could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them, and God had not conveyed it to them directly. It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. "Through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given." (Acts 8:18 NKJV) Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit. Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria, the brethren there would have still been saved. However, without miraculous gifts, it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them. They were babes in Christ. There were no New Testaments. Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel. One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind. How well do we remember things? How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone? The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the Spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles, unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles. We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household, even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip's preaching life. Many think baptism is no part of the gospel. Philip did not think that way. He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God. How do we know? The text does not say he did. The text does say they were baptized, "both men and women were baptized." (Acts 8:12) How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it? Thus, we see to preach "the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials? He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today. You must remember, Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher. Think on that before belittling baptism.

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

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Reconciling With a Brother

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

Can a man be saved who has contempt for and mistreats his fellowman? John says no when he says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10 NAS) Contempt for and mistreatment of a brother is the opposite of love and places one in the devil's camp. Four verses later John says, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death."

One is either a child of God or a child of the devil; there is no middle ground, and John declares that the man who does not love his brother is not of God. Such a man abides in death. Thus verse 23 of this passage begins with the words "if therefore" tying what is to come with what has just been said in verse 22 about various attitudes towards and words spoken against a brother.

One cannot on the one hand worship God and on the other hand mistreat his fellowman whom God created and gave a soul to and for whom Christ also died. God does not show partiality, "there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:11 NAS) "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NAS) "There is none righteous, not even one." (Rom. 3:10 NAS) The man whose vanity and pride have led him to see himself as being in a better position before God than others, say for example the Pharisee who went up to pray in Luke 18:10-14, fools only himself. Any and all who are saved are saved by grace.

Christians need to be very aware of the great danger they are in at all times as regards this matter. They try their best to be faithful and obedient in all things. There is much evil they would not think of partaking in. We see sin and protest against it as we should. The Pharisee that went up to pray to God and went back unjustified in Luke 18 was not wrong in saying there were swindlers, unjust, and adulterous people in the world for there were and always will be. The Pharisee saw that. He did not partake in those things. He seemed to be faithfully obeying the commands of God, so what was his problem?

He had lost sight of the fact that he too was but a mere mortal, a man in need of God's grace and forgiveness. His obedience in commandment keeping had blinded his eyes to the sins of his heart. He had forgotten or ignored what Jesus called the second greatest commandment of the Law of Moses, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mat. 22:39 NAS)

Pride had grown up in his heart so much so that he pitied other sinners needing forgiveness but was convinced he had no need for it himself. He had become his own judge. He would judge not only himself but also his fellowman. How did he know this tax-gatherer who was also praying was a sinner extraordinaire? He was ready to take God's place as judge of all. His outward commandment-keeping, the outward observances of such, had led him to judge himself a righteous man in need of no forgiveness.

God judges a man's heart. "But the LORD said to Samuel, '…for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.'" (1 Sam. 16:7 NAS) "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." (Jer. 17:10 NAS) "My shield is with God, Who saves the upright in heart." (Psalms 7:10 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). The Pharisee had a heart problem.

All Christians today who are trying to live faithful obedient lives need to beware of the tendency we all have to become like this Pharisee. If we are faithful in the outward observances of Christianity, the first thing we know, we can find ourselves finding fault in others rather easily. We become the standard by which people are to be judged. We can end up worshiping ourselves rather than God. The Bible says of that particular Pharisee that when he prayed he was "praying thus to himself." (Luke 18:11 NAS)

The man who would do such things as Jesus spoke of in our text in Matt. 5:22 seems to be a man much like the Pharisee of Luke 18 in his attitude toward his fellowman and towards himself. Jesus is telling us in verses 23 and 24 of our text if we have been this way toward our fellowman, have been disrespectful, hurtful, degraded him, or done him wrong in any way, go take care of that problem now. Go to him, own up to your sin, and be reconciled. That has top priority. Do not delay. What a wonderful world it would be if we would all obey God's golden rule—Matt. 7:12—(man gave it the name "golden" but the rule is God's).

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20 ESV)

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

One Church or Thousands

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me. One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it. I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her. Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor. Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist. I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion? Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects? There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth. I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with.

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them. They will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning. Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O. J. it simply cannot be so. It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it. That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their minds that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: ‘Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.’ ” Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV)

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see? Had God done it? The text says "their eyes they have closed." Why would a person do that? Could it be they did not want to see? Could it be they did not want to know? Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know? Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing. Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV) It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear.

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will." Both could have heard. The only difference between the two parties was the heart. The Jewish heart had grown dull. The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull." The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will. Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV) The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them. It is hard to get a satisfied person to change.

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man. The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context). It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions. Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will. Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong. The eyes were deliberately closed.

This brings me to what I really want to talk about. I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present. The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology. In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide." In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000. The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another and the number is growing continuously.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty-some thousand? What kind of new math is that?

How is it we have in the Bible a plain statement of scripture, as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews, and yet the eyes are closed today, and the ears are hard of hearing, and the hearts are grown dull, so that the scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty-some thousand? Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old. We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church. Where do you read that in your Bible? What book is that in? It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said. That parable is found in John 15. Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations. There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time. When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it. Why? Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper. Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations? It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account. It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines. When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.). The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else, and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination, then the reality is truth no longer matters. Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error. Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus. That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means. What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock. Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "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"? (NKJV) Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men, or the same group of men, do the same thing after Pentecost. What then? They are believers that Christ is the Son of God. Is that all that matters? Are they then in the "one church"? Are they saved? The failure to confess Jesus is the same as failing to accept him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief. When you begin to define saving faith as something more than just intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are admitting that doctrine does make a difference after all. And if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church." The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built. God adds you when you obey the gospel. The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved? In Acts 2, in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted), we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached. It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter, via the Holy Spirit, preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach? He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV) Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached. Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful? Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation. If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened. He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter. So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says. That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus." There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example). No one wants that kind of faith. We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject. You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds. They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts. It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either. They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question. Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside. Here are some examples: the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc. These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of. These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question. Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which a person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or, on the other hand, that there is only one church? I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling. It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them? Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church. I include Catholicism as just another denomination. It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad). But this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost), or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets, and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built. That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine. Every congregation was to abide in it. There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine. It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church. It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church. If that church is not found in your community why not restore it? You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

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