Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

IV. Other Concepts Of “Automatic” Grace Or Forgiveness:

A. WE ALREADY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE AS A PRESENT POSSESSION, so we will not be lost because of sins we may commit. Persons teaching this error will want to specify “sins of weakness,” “sincere sins,” “sins of ignorance.” This waters down the doctrine and makes it easier to swallow. Actually, it comes from Calvinism which says we have eternal life and cannot be lost no matter what sins we commit. The Bible teaches we are alive unto God when we obey the gospel (Eph. 2:1). Being in the family of God, we are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” There is “the glory which shall be revealed in us.” “But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (Rom. 8:17, 18, 25). There is “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:3-5; cf. Phil. 3:20). On the inheritance day, “the righteous (shall go, understood verb, RH) into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). We have eternal life in prospect or by right of inheritance. If we continue to practice a sin (failing to repent, confess, ask forgiveness, and quit the sin), we forfeit our inheritance.

B. 1 JOHN 1:7 SHOWS GOD WILL REMOVE OUR SINS, EVEN SINS WE ARE CONTINUING TO PRACTICE, IF WE ARE DOING THE BEST WE CAN. Just as above, this amounts to a provision of automatic forgiveness for some sins one may continue to practice. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). This passage is isolated from its context and other passages to create this impression: (1) we walk by faith in some things, walk-walk-walk, i.e. continued action; (2) we walk in sin in some things, sin-sin-sin, i.e. continued action; (3) Christ’s blood removes the sin though we never quit practicing it! Just as fast as we can commit the sin, the blood of Christ washes it away unconditionally so far as the sin itself is concerned supposedly conditionally in that we must walk by faith in some things.

The context continues at least through 1 Jn. 2:2, and does not have in view continued action in sin. The sin washed away in 1:7 is the sin committed in 2:1, which is not continuous action. A. T. Robertson points out in his Word Studies that “sin” in 2:1 (“if any man sin”) is 11 second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive”: “if one commit sin.” Ingressive aorist signifies point action which “breaks in” upon the scene, as any grammar will show. Dana and Mantey say of it that the action is “contemplated in its beginning. This use is commonly employed with verbs which signify a state or condition, and denote entrance into that state or condition” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p, 196). John pictures our falling into sin from time to time, not continuous action. He pictures sin as “breaking in” upon our lives, not continuous action constantly in our lives. It is sin “breaking and entering” from time to time, not sin abiding in us. In his Word Studies, Vol. IV, Kenneth S. Wuest says

” In the expression, ‘if any man sin,’ we have the aorist subjunctive, speaking, not of habitual action, but a single act. It could better be translated, ‘if any man commit an act of sin.’ John regards sin in the believer’s life, not as habitual, but as extraordinary, as infrequent.”

When a man continues in digression, as worshiping with an instrument of music, he is constantly in the “state or condition” of sin. He is not repenting-not changing his mind–and not reforming-not changing his practice. JOHN IS NOT PROMISING FORGIVENESS FOR ANY SUCH SIN!

If a Christian began worshiping with an instrument, letting that sin “break in” upon his life, entering the state or condition of sin, BUT THEN REPENTED AND CONFESSED AND REPUDIATED HIS WRONG, the blood of Christ would cleanse him in keeping with 1 Jn. 1:6-2:2. Sin breaks in upon our lives when sinful anger breaks in; but as we repent and confess, God forgives. If we enter the state of sin by ungodly anger and do not repent or confess it to God, but continue to walk in that state or condition, there is no automatic forgiveness clause revealed in God’s word for such.

In fact, 1 Jn. 3:9 absolutely denies the very thing brethren affirm! “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” No this does not teach perfectionism. This concerns continuing in a state or condition of sin, “not mere occasional acts of sin.” “Doeth no sin” is “linear present active indicative. . . . The child of God does not have the habit of sin.” ‘And he cannot sin” is “present active infinitive” and “can only mean ‘and he cannot go on sinning . . . . . .. (see Robertson’s Word Studies in 1 Jn. 3: 6, 9). Interestingly, Dana and Mantey use the very verses our brethren overlook, in comparing the aorist and present tenses (Grammar, p. 195):

In 1 Jn. 2:1, he uses the aorist tense twice with the verb HAMARTANIEN, to sin, ‘My little children, I write these things to you HINA ME HAMARTETE, in order that you won’t even commit an act of sin. And EAN TIS HAMARTEI if anyone does commit a sin, we have an advocate with the Father.’ In 3:9 he uses the present tense with the same verb: ‘Everyone born of God OU POIEI, does not practice, continue in sin; because his seed MENEI, is abiding in him, and he is not able to HAMARTANEIN, continue in sin, because he GEGENETAI, has been born of God.’

In other words, the sins which we confess and are forgiven are occasional acts of sin which we may commit and turn from in genuine sorrow (1 Jn. 1:6-2:2). When we continue in a sinful practice and thus the state of sin, there is no automatic provision of grace; to the contrary, we show we are standing out of the family of God where all grace is and standing in the devil’s family (1 Jn. 3:4-9).

Both concepts discussed here under the heading of automatic forgiveness are currently being used to enlarge the circle of grace, unity, and fellowship to include brethren WHO ARE CONTINUING IN THE SINFUL PRACTICES OF DEGRESSION from the law of Christ revealed in the New Testament.

V. Even Though Something Is Sinful, That Is No Guarantee We Will Be Lost For Practicing It. The argument is that we cannot be God or “play judge and jury.” We can say a practice is sin, but we cannot say it will make one be lost. This is an old denominational dodge, implying men should agree to disagree without saying one viewpoint or the other actually condemns in God’s sight. It is like saying that it is a sin to hear the gospel without believing and being baptized, but that such failure does not mean one will be lost. When we declare the consequences of sin, the truth is we do not take anyone’s final judgment into our own hands. To admit that an action is sinful, to say sin condemns, and to then say the specific action mentioned will condemn does not constitute playing judge and jury. It constitutes faithfulness to the word committed into our hands for preaching. Sin condemns! If it does not condemn one to eternal torment, just what does it do?

A tract has been widely circulated which admits instrumental music in worship “is sinful.” But then the author says, “Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental music in worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to ‘sin’ I have refused to use that word” (Edward Fudge, Answers to Questions ). The truth is that when one admits a practice is sin, he has already made the wages of such an act death – eternal separation from God. (1) “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). (2) Instrumental music in worship is sinful. (3) THEREFORE the wages of worshiping with instrumental music is death. Unless a perfect square can be perfectly round, there is just no way to get around it. But why would anyone want to get around It? To soften the thinking of brethren. To widen the boundaries of grace, unity, and fellowship.

VI. We Are Saved By Grace, Not By Our Own Works Of Merit Or Perfect Obedience. This is the old denomination dodge setting aside the conditional nature of salvation. Verses are quoted regarding our being saved by grace, not being earned or merited. We are saved by faith, not by works, it is added. Surprisingly, even an occasional denominationalist will see through this farce. Commenting on Romans 4, Kenneth S. Wuest points out that the faith which saves is actually a work; faith can be conceived of as saving as a work of merit or as an unmeritorious condition of salvation. In his word Studies on Romans (p. 66-67), he used the illustration of a drowning man:

It is like the proffered hand of a drowning man that makes it possible for the life guard to save him. There is nothing meritorious in the act of a drowning man in stretching out his hand in order to he saved. It is the efficient medium through which he is saved. Thus, the act of faith on the sinner’s part is not meritorious but only the efficient medium through which God is able to save him.

We enter grace by obedient faith, we continue in it by continuing in obedient faith. If one can understand that he enters grace by baptism as an act of faith, he can understand that other acts of obedient faith may be required to sustain the relationship. “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17).

But brethren’s thinking is becoming blurred on some of these fundamental principles. For instance, one brother addresed a church after it fell to institutionalism this way; he said that it may be better for a church not to contribute to human institutions, but brethern in churches which do so may expect the grace of God to save them anyway. “. . . we are saved ones because of God’s grace to us in His Son, and we are accepted by Him ‘in the Beloved!’ Not because we know it all, or do it all right.” We are not saved “through works of righteousness which we may do, but by the grace of God.”

We cannot work out a plan of salvation by ou- own wisdom, but God in His wisdom does have a plan of salvation for us (Eph. 1). Nothing we can do will make us earn, deserve, or merit salvation; yet it is a condition of salvation that we must work the works of God-we must obey Him in order to be saved (Lk. 17:10; Eph. 2:8-9; Jn. 6:29; Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8-9). It is the very nature of faith to do what God requires (Heb. 11). “The just shall live by faith.”

Conclusion

The loose teaching pointed out in this article is not all the loose teaching being done in relation to the new unity movement. Passages like Lev. 10:1-2, Jn. 17, Eph. 4:1-7, Gal. 1:8-9, 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3, and others are being construed to broaden concepts of grace, unity, and fellowship. But all the loose teaching has one thing in common: it will pave the way for unity with institutional brethern, conservative Christian Church people, then those in demoninations who have been immersed for one reason or another. Let us “remove not the old landmark” (Prov. 23:10). If we can move it an inch, we can move it a mile. In time, that is exactly what will happen to the new unity movement. The inch demanded now may not look like much. It has all happened before. Look at the last century, or the first and second centuries and following. Once human wisdom moves and expands the boundaries God has set, there is no stopping place short of “the universal brotherhood of man.”

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 710-711
November 11, 1976

By Cecil Willis

For the past several weeks now, -we have been concentrating our efforts in this study to investigating what the various ones in the New Testament did to be saved. We are making a partial survey of the cases of conversion as recorded in the New Testament, and especially in the book of Acts, but we are trying to show that the things that those men and women in the apostolic days did to be saved are the very same things that you and I do.

After studying the story of the salvation of the Ethiopian nobleman last week, we would like to reflect on the conversion of Cornelius for this period of study.

The first thing concerning the salvation of Cornelius that one needs to know is where to find the record of his conversion. We are not living in the day in which this event transpired, and consequently do not know the details of it first-hand, but we have the inspired account of what took place in the household of Cornelius when Peter came over to preach to him. Actually, there are three separate accounts of the conversion of Cornelius just as there are three independent accounts of Paul’s conversion. Luke gives us the story of Cornelius’s conversion in Acts the tenth chapter. Then in the eleventh chapter, Peter is called in question concerning why he went to Caesarea to preach to this Gentile, and so he rehearses what occurred again. Later on, Peter went up to the city of Jerusalem and there he again told part of the story connected with Cornelius’s salvation when they were discussing the problem of circumcision. So we have a record of events in connection with the conversion of Cornelius found in the tenth, eleventh and fifteenth chapters of the book of Acts. We shall have occasion to refer to each of these accounts freely.

A Good, Religious Man

First, we need to know just a little about the man, Cornelius. Probably the one outstanding characteristic of Cornelius with which more people would be acquainted is that he was a Gentile. As Peter first began to speak, he started off by declaring that “Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or to come unto one of another nation: and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean: wherefore also I came without gainsaying when I was sent for” (Acts 10:28, 29). In the eleventh chapter, as Peter taught us and the Jews concerning the significance of the reception that “to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). Then while Peter was in Jerusalem, he referred to the time that he went to Cornelius’s home by saying: “Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles, should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7). So in studying the conversion of Cornelius, we are dealing with the first case recorded in the Bible of Gentile conversion. About eight or ten years earlier the gospel had been preached to the Jews, beginning on Pentecost. The Jews thought that they had a monopoly on God’s blessings in the gospel, until Peter was sent by God to declare the unsearchable riches of salvation to Cornelius, a Gentile.

A second trait that we should notice regarding the man, Cornelius, is that he was extremely religious. It is hard for many people to realize that even though this man was so devoutly religious, that he was yet an unsaved man. Many people, are just as Cornelius, worshiping devoutly and sincerely, but still wrong. Notice what the Scriptures say about the religious life of this good man. “Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always ” (Acts 10:1, 2). Now this is the kind of man of whom Peter was speaking when he quoted Cornelius’ words concerning what God had told him to do. God told this very religious man to “Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter: who shall tell thee words, whereby he might be saved.” This man, in spite of his great religious life, was still an unsaved man. One cannot save that which is not lost. Cornelius could not be saved if he was already saved. This should do enough to explode the now prevalently taught doctrine which states that all good religious people will be saved. Few men today, if any at all, can meet the moral qualifications ascribed to Cornelius, by Luke the inspired writer, and yet men today will trust in their own moral goodness for their salvation. I feel sure in saying that few men today have attained the moral and religious, status of Cornelius, yet he was an unsaved person. So are these today who are trusting in their own goodness for their salvation. They are trusting in their own merit, when they have no merit. A religious and moral life is not enough to save one. It must be the right religion, and the right morals to save, and these may only be found in God’s word.

I feel safe in saying that there are more doctrinal errors taught from a misunderstanding of this tenth chapter of the book of Acts than in any other record of conversion in all the New Testament. Consequently, our study is seen to be all the more important if we are to understand God’s will to man. Error cannot save. Jesus said, it takes truth to save (Jn. 8:32).

One is helped in understanding this chapter, and some of the points we will discuss in just a moment, if he understands the attitude that the Jews had toward the Gentiles. The Jews had absolutely no use for a Gentile. As Jesus taught the disciples concerning disciplining an erring brother, he told them to first go to the brother who did wrong, if he refuses to hear thee, take with thee one or two witnesses, and then if he refuse to hear thee, tell it to the church. If he remains impenitent, then let him be unto thee as a Publican and as a Gentile (Matt. 18:15-17). That simply means, have nothing to do with him. This was precisely the attitude of the Jew toward the Gentile. When Cornelius sent over to Joppa to get Peter, and Peter returned to Caesarea with Cornelius’s servants, one of the first things that Peter said was, “ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation” (Acts 10:28). This was the reason that Peter brought with him the six Jewish brethren from Joppa. Peter used them as witnesses unto what happened in the house of Cornelius, and that the Gentiles also had been granted repentance unto life.

Miracles

In connection with this case of conversion, there are three miracles performed, but be it observed in the outset of this part of our lesson, that none of these miracles had anything to do with saving the man, other than to tell him where to get a preacher. The first miracle is performed upon Cornelius. “He saw in a vision openly, as it were about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying to him, Cornelius. And he, fastening his eyes upon him, and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter: he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side” (Acts 10:3-6). This is the first miracle. Was it to save Cornelius? Was it to tell him what to do to be saved? Certainly, not! It was to tell him where to get a preacher who was to tell him words whereby he could be saved. Some of these denominational preachers need to find a New Testament example in which a miracle was performed to save a man, or in which through some miraculous method one is told what to do to be saved.

The second miracle was performed upon Peter, the preacher. It was to tell’ him to go preach to this man. Cornelius had sent servants to fetch Peter and as they “drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:~ and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance; and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was done thrice, and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven” (Acts 10:20). Then later when the three servants of Cornelius came seeking Peter, the Spirit said to him “But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them” (Acts 10:20). So this is the second miracle performed. It was upon Peter, the preacher, and was to instruct him to go preach to Cornelius in spite of his Gentile race. So Peter, arose, and went with the servants to the household of Cornelius to preach to him.

In the meantime, Cornelius had been getting ready for the arrival of Peter, the messenger sent of God. He had gathered all his family and near friends. When Peter arrived, and came into the house, Cornelius met him, and fell down before Peter, and worshiped him. But, this was not what Peter would have him do. “Peter raised him up saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Peter would not permit this man to worship him, for he was a man also. Is this action not vastly different than that of those Roman pontiff’s who have claimed to be Peter’s successor? One must bow before him who claims to be the head of the church on earth, which a very militant denominational group claims is the successor of Peter. Peter not only would not permit it, but he also forbade it. They expect it.

The third miracle in the conversion of Cornelius is this: when Peter came to the house of Cornelius to preach, as he began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as he did on the apostles in the beginning, or on the day of Pentecost. From the tenth chapter one might be led to believe that Peter was in the middle of his sermon, or at least had been preaching to them quite at length when the Holy Spirit came upon them, but in the eleventh chapter, Peter rehearsed the matter in chronological order. He related the events in the order in which they happened. How do we know that the eleventh chapter is in chronological order, and that the tenth is not? Notice this verse: “But Peter began, and expounded the matter unto them in order, saying. . .” (Acts 11:4). The expression “in order” in the Greek language means successively, or one after another, and so Peter was telling us the order in which these matters transpired. Then Peter said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even -as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). It was as Peter began to speak that the Holy Spirit fell on them. This was the third miracle performed, and this is the one that men sometimes use to show that these people were saved before they obeyed the commandment of baptism. But actually the Holy Spirit came before Peter had preached to them, and if they were saved before Peter preached to them, then they were saved before they believed, for “faith comes by hearing.” What proves too much proves nothing. They were not saved until they obeyed all the words for which Peter had come to tell them.

The purpose of the baptism of the household of Cornelius by the Holy Spirit was not to save them. We are told exactly why they were baptized of the Holy Spirit, by this same apostle Peter, who was present at the time. You remember what we learned earlier about how the Jews felt about Gentiles. They did not even think that a Jew should go into the house of a Gentile, certainly one should not eat with a Gentile, said the Jew, and surely Gentiles had no right to the blessings of the gospel. When Peter went up to Jerusalem to tell them why he had gone into the house of this Gentile, he began by telling them how the Lord had sent him over to Caesarea, and how that he had taken with him six Jewish brethren. Peter said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:15-18). Why was the Holy Spirit given? It was given, said Peter, to show to the Jews that the Gentiles had the same right to the gospel as had the Jew. This is what the inspired apostle said about it. Now many today tell us it was given to save them. If you believe or teach Holy Spirit baptism is to save, remember that Peter the apostle did not know it was for that reason. Do you know more than the apostle Peter, as he spoke guided by the Holy Spirit? If not, then you should cease to use this instance of Holy Spirit baptism differently than did Peter, and he said it was to prove to the Jews that the Gentiles deserved the gospel too.

Conclusion

Now, in conclusion, what did Cornelius do to be saved? He did the same thing that you and I must do. True, there were some miracles performed, but they were simply to bring the preacher to him, and the last was for the purpose we have just studied. What did he do? He heard gospel preaching from the mouth of Peter, the apostle, believed it, and obeyed. Peter asked, “Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:47, 48). Cornelius did the same thing that we must do. We must hear, believe, repent and be baptized.

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 707-709
November 11, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

In the thinking of many religionists baptism is no more than a ritual. Its meaning is explained in a variety of ways, and to some it has no real meaning. While there is widespread agreement that water is the element prescribed in the New Testament for baptism, few acknowledge that baptism is necessary to the obtaining of forgiveness of sins.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Jesus Make It a Condition of Salvation?

After instructing the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, the Lord said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Note that Jesus did not say, “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” And He did not say, “He that believeth shall be saved whether he is baptized or not.” To the contrary Jesus said, “He that believeth and Is baptized shall be saved.”

On another occasion Jesus said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man . . .” (Matt. 7:24). This makes both hearing and doing essential to our being like a wise man. In like manner, Mk. 16:16 makes both belief and baptism essential to our being saved. Hearing without doing does not make one wise, and belief without baptism does not result in salvation. If two and two make four, two minus two cannot equal four. Belief and baptism must not be interpreted to mean belief minus baptism.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Peter Teach That It Is for Remission of Sins

On Pentecost, Peter preached that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. His hearers, pricked in their heart with conviction, asked what to do. Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). How can one admit that repentance is for (unto) the remission of sins but deny that baptism is for that purpose?

When Peter said in Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,” no one takes that to mean that repentance is necessary but being converted is non-essential. If Acts 3:19 makes both repentance and being converted necessary to blotting out of sins, Acts 2:38 makes both repentance and baptism necessary to remission of sins.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Was Saul Told To “Be Baptized And Wash Away Thy Sins?”

A disciple named Ananias was sent to Saul, a praying penitent man, in Damascus. “And now why tarriest thou?” said Ananias “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name, of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Were Saul’s sins already washed away? If so, why was he told to “wash away thy sins”?

It will not help to say this washing was symbolic. One might as well argue that the arising was symbolic rather than real, or that the baptism was symbolic rather than actual, or that the calling on the Lord was only symbolic rather than genuine calling, as to contend that the washing away of sins was only a symbolic portrayal. The language of Ananias clearly implies that Saul was still a sinner until he was baptized.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Paul Regard It As a Prerequisite for the New Life?

Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Baptism stands between the sinner and his entrance into Jesus Christ. Baptism puts one into Jesus Christ. And baptism puts one into the death of the Lord where the benefits of His shed blood are to be received. Furthermore, baptism enables one to enter into “newness of life.” The theory of salvation before baptism would have one walking in newness of life before the old man is buried.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Does the Bible Say That It Saves?

According to the apostle Peter, “eight souls were saved by water” in Noah’s day. The water saved them in that it carried the ark with its occupants from the old sin-cursed world to a new beginning. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).

Baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ! That is the gist of Peter’s statement. Just as water “saved” eight people who were in the ark, baptism “doth also now save us.” Many argue that baptism doth NOT save us. Peter said baptism doth NOW save us. Which do you accept, the teaching of the Bible, or the teaching of fallible men?

Reader, if you have not obeyed the Lord in baptism for the remission of sins, do it today.

Truth Magazine XX: 45, p. 706
November 11, 1976

By Guthrie Dean

I call your attention to a study of 2 John 9-11. False guides, who teach “the Man without the Plan,” maintain that “the doctrine of Christ” refers only to the teaching regarding the deity of Jesus. This fits into their man-without-the-plan theology. Brother Ketcherside and his associates also contend that “the doctrine of Christ” refers only to the deity of Jesus. This fits into their “fellowship-everyone-who-believes-in-Jesus” theory. But the word “doctrine” here is didache and refers to “the doctrine which has God, Christ, the Lord, for its author and supporter” (Thayer’s Lexicon). The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Green’s Lexicon, and Vine’s Word Study, also define “doctrine” as “teaching, instruction, what is taught.” Though this “doctrine of Christ” might well include what He taught about His deity, it nevertheless refers to what Christ taught. Brother Guy N. Woods, in his Commentary on 2 John, writes: “The ‘teaching of Christ’ here is not teaching about Christ, or teaching which is Christian in substance or nature; it is the teaching which Christ did personally and through those whom he inspired. It is the teaching of Christ, because he is, in the final analysis, its author, and from him it issued. It is thus an infallible standard, and no deviation from it is possible without apostasy.”

Commenting on verse 9, Albert Barnes suggests that it is the doctrine which Christ taught, thus agreeing with Macknight whom he mentions in this connection. Johnson has it “The teaching, the Gospel.” Rowe and Klingman apply it to “what is revealed in the gospel.” N. T. Caton, in his commentary, states: “One abiding in Christ, observing his doctrine, possesses both Christ and the Father.” Pulpit Commentary reads: “The doctrine of Christ, we understand as meaning the truth which Christ himself taught.” Vincent’s Word Studies states: “Doctrine of Christ. Not the teaching concerning Christ, but the teaching of Christ Himself and of His apostles. See Heb. 2:3. So according to New Testament usage. See John 18:19; Acts 2:12; Rev. 2:14, 15.”

Translations that render it anything besides simply “doctrine” or “teaching” all seem to agree that Didache (doctrine) refers to Christ’s Teachings. Among these translations are The Jerusalem Bible, Morlie’s Simplified New Testament, J. B. Phillips, The Living New Testament, An American Translation, Centenary Translation, the Amplified New Testament, and the Berkeley Version. The Amplified reads: “Anyone who runs on ahead (of God) and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ-who is not content with what He taught-does no have God.” Please study the text again before you are willing to give up on the “orthodox” usage we have made of 2 John 9-11 down through the years. It still reads the same, and still means what it says. We cannot fellowship those who do not teach the gospel that Christ taught. We cannot bid them Godspeed.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 701-702
November 4, 1976