Truth Magazine

By Richard Boone

Recently actress/comedienne Ellen Degeneres “came out of the closet” about her homosexuality. She appeared on the cover of Time magazine with the caption, “Yep, I’m Gay” and was interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC’s 20/ 20 (April 25, 1997). In her sitcom, Ellen, aired by ABC on April 30, her character declared she was gay. All of these illustrate that homosexuality is more acceptable to our society.

My comments here, though, focus on the larger problem  immorality and its acceptance. There are different mindsets in society  following God’s will or following one’s own will (which is, in reality, a form of following Satan’s will). There are different lifestyles and justifications which arise from these different mindsets. While older generations may not face the battle as long, their children and grandchildren, my children and grandchildren will have to face the problem. It is not going away; we cannot ignore it.

I want to mention some of Degeneres’ remarks from the 20/20 interview and comment on them. I hope they will help to explain why there are still many people opposed to homosexuality and its promotion.

Ellen Is A Homosexual By Choke

I was surprised that Ellen admitted this. The current societal view is that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but a product of genetics. Ellen mentioned that she could have, by choice, been a mayor’s wife right now, and greeted that former boyfriend by name. In reality, all homosexuals are such by their own choices just as the Bible has said all along.

In Genesis 19 two angels came to Sodom and Lot provided for them. However, the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and wanted his guests so they could know them carnally (v. 5). Lot refused and offered his two virgin daughters instead (v. 8). They refused his two daughters; they made a choice!

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul said that the Gentile women “exchanged” the natural use of the man, and that men “leaving” the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts for one another, committing what is shameful. Did you notice these verbs  “exchanged” and “leaving”? These words describe choices, not automatic processes due to genetic coding.

Ellen Was Hurt By Her Family’s Reaction

When they learned that Ellen was a lesbian, her father and step-mother asked her to move out of the house. She was deeply hurt by this. While I do not gloat in the fact that she was hurt, we can also understand why they asked her to leave by considering the biblical descriptions of homosexuality.

It is an “abomination” to God (Lev. 18:22), punishable by death under Moses’ Law (Lev. 20:13). God described homosexuals as “perverted ones” and “dogs” (Deut. 23:17-18). In Romans 1:24-27, notice this list of adjectives: “uncleanness,” “dishonor,” “vile passions,” “against nature,” and “shameful.” Not a pretty picture, is it? Jude 7 states that homosexuality is going after “strange” flesh. Should we be surprised, then, when people are repulsed at such behavior? I don’t think so.

Ellen Took A Stand Because She Couldn’t

Change Who She Really Was

She finally mustered the courage to stand, and in de-scribing her stand, compared herself to Rosa Parks who refused to relinquish her seat on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama years ago. Parks was black and could not change who she was; Ellen is gay and, by her own reasoning, can-not change who she is.

I strongly deny the validity of this comparison. Race is unchangeable and not a matter of choice. Homosexuality  a behavior  is totally a matter of choice. Furthermore, just as she chose to be a homosexual, she can choose to cease being a homosexual. In fact, we have a Bible ex-ample of people who did just that.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul declared that certain ones will not enter heaven; among them are homosexuals and sodomites. But then note verse 11: “And such were some of you …” (italics mine, rb). Yes, among the church at Corinth were former homosexuals. The truth is they changed  through the gospel of Christ! They heard and believed it, and were baptized (Acts 18:8). When they were baptized, they were washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). If the Corinthians could change and be forgiven then, Ellen Degeneres, other homosexuals, and sinners of any kind can be forgiven now!

Ellen’s Definition of “Normal”

Diane Sawyer asked Ellen if she understood why people objected to her behavior and announcement since homosexuality was not considered normal by many people. Ellen was very uncomfortable during this portion of the inter-view and did not like the term “normal.” I’m not surprised; if you admit that there is “normal” behavior, then you admit that “abnormal” behavior is also possible.

Ellen went on to say that “normal” to her meant “what-ever makes me happy.” There are several flaws in her definition of normal! First, it is a subjective standard. One can determine what is right and wrong in his own eyes by such a definition (Judg. 17:6; 21:25). Second, it allows for one to have a clear conscience no matter what he or she does. Paul plainly says, however, that a clear conscience does not justify one before God (1 Cor. 4:4). Finally, while Ellen may be content to stop with her application of “normal,” others will follow who will not be content with that. Like error, sin never sits still  it gets worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13).

Ellen Prefers “Gay” Over “Lesbian”

She did not like the term “lesbian,” preferring “gay” instead. Why should we be surprised? Softening the description makes it more palatable and acceptable. If she didn’t like “lesbian,” she and others certainly don’t like the biblical descriptions of her manner of life previously mentioned.

We see this all around us. Homosexuality is no longer perversion; it is an “alternate lifestyle.” Drunkenness (a sin) is no longer acceptable; now it is “alcoholism” (a sickness). Abortion is not about murdering innocent human life; it is the “termination” of a “fetus.”

This happens among Christians, too. We don’t commit sin; we just have “bad judgment.” Local churches don’t have problems caused by sinful attitudes and actions; brethren just have “personality clashes.” Unity in understanding and application of Scripture is unrealistic; we just have “more than one possible interpretation.” We could go on and on with such Ashdodic examples (Neh. 13:23-24).

But again, we should not be surprised that Ellen prefers “gay” over “lesbian,” that the world prefers certain terms instead of biblical descriptions, nor that brethren sometimes change language to avoid biblical realities. Even among

God’s ancient people there were those who told the prophets to prophesy “smooth things” (Isa. 30:10-11).

Ellen Was Accepted And Applauded By Her Staff

After taping the episode of Ellen in which she “comes out,” Ellen’s staff applauded the completion of it and threw her a “coming out” party. They even gave her a cake which said, if I remember correctly, “It’s good to be gay!” What about those who, though not necessarily practicing homosexuality (or other sins) would approve of such?

In Romans 1:32 Paul spoke of the righteous judgment of God. Those who practice such things described in Romans 1 (homosexuality is included) are “worthy of death.” Not only are those who practice such things worthy of death, but those who “approve of those who practice them” are also worthy of death. That is why we must be so careful, lest we share in another’s sins and fail to keep ourselves pure (1 Tim. 5:22).

Ellen’s View Of Jesus As Loving

And Non-Judgmental

Frankly, I got “boiling mad” when Ellen said that Jesus was so loving and non-judgmental that he would never condemn anybody, suggesting that we ought to be the same. Counteracting my anger was the sadness in my heart at the ignorance manifested in that statement. Ellen is an example of one whose mind is blind and past feeling because of the ignorance of God’s will that is in her (cf. Eph. 4:17-19). While it is true that Jesus was loving, it is totally erroneous that he was non-judgmental.

Though I could reference many examples, I’ll use just one  his last public discourse (Matt. 23). Here he delivered some of the sharpest rebukes ever known to man: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” This was stated several times. Jesus judged and was stern in his rebukes, but it was not because he was unloving. He did this be-cause of his great love for lost mankind!

In Matthew 7:1 Jesus warned disciples against making hypocritical judgments (see vv. 1-5), but in that prohibition he did not rule out making any judgments. In fact, in Matthew 7:15 we are warned to beware of “false prophets.” To do so requires that we make a judgment about truth and error. Jesus taught us to make judgments, but he also warned us to make “righteous” judgments (John 7:24).

To believe that we cannot make judgments of any kind logically leads to universalism  where everything is right, and where nothing can be said to be wrong! Even those who say they believe that we should not be judgmental will not apply this principle to its ultimate end. They will certainly judge those who don’t approve of their manner of life! Truly, “the legs of the lame are unequal” (Prov. 26:7).

Conclusion

According to Ellen, all of the above points are true. Ac-cording to God  and this is the most tragic point of all  Ellen Degeneres will be lost unless she receives God’s forgiveness! This can only be done by obedience to the gospel of Christ  she can purify her soul by obeying the truth ( I Pet. 1:22). Let us pray and work to the end that any person who has not yet done so will have more time and opportunity. Let us also pray that God will use us as mouthpieces to speak words which will prick their hearts to do so (Acts 2:37).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 6-8
July 17, 1997

By Bobby Witherington

According to the World Book Dictionary, a denomination is: (1) “a name for a group or class of things,” (2) “a religious group or sect,” and (3) “a class or kind of units.” From the same source we are told that “the presence of many different denominations and sects in a society means that the culture is differentiated into many parts, with differing group interests and view points.”

No doubt, the first of the above definitions is the one which people generally have in mind when they use “de-nomination” in their speech. For example, one may ask another, “of what denomination are you?” The one asking this question is expecting to hear the “Name” of the “group or class” with which the individual is religiously affiliated. However, a denomination, in the religious sense, is more than just something named. Donald Tender, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives this definition:

“Denominations are associations of congregations  though sometimes it might be said that congregations are localized subdivisions of denominations  that have a common heritage. Moreover, a denomination does not claim to be the only legitimate expression of the church.”

Presumably, in mathematical terms, one could conclude from the preceding definitions, that “the church” represents the denominator, or “the number below the line in a fraction, which states the size of the parts in their relation to the whole.” For example, if there are a total of 300 denominations (in fact, there’s a lot more!), then “300” would be the denominator (“the number below the line”), and the denomination known as the Lutheran Church (or whatever denomination you may choose) would constitute the Numerator (the number above the line). Tragically, the mind set of most people in our society is such that “the church” On its broadest, or universal sense) is “differentiated into many parts” (or denominations), based upon “differing group interests and view points.” Moreover, each congregation is simply viewed as a “localized subdivision” of that particular denomination.

It should be evident that the preceding comments were intended to define “denomination,” and to present the general concept regarding “the church” (universal) as consisting of a hodgepodge of all conflicting denominations. More-over, it should also be stated that this concept of “the church” necessitates not only the tolerance, but also the conscientious acceptance of every denomination as representing “the legitimate expression” of the “group interests and view points” of that particular group. It should further be observed that a conscientious acceptance of the very concept of denominationalism also necessitates a conscientious endorsement of religious division.

But Something Is Clearly Wrong!

As we have plainly shown, the acceptance of the concept of denominationalism constitutes an endorsement of religious division. However, our Lord was definitely opposed to religious division. Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, saying, “Neither pray I for these alone (the apostles, bw), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Jesus not only prayed for the unity of all believers; He also died to “reconcile both (Jews and Gentiles, bw) unto God in one body by the cross…” (Eph. 2:16). Moreover, the apostle Paul, one of Christ’s chosen “ambassadors” (2 Cor. 5:20), plainly charged the saints at Corinth, saying, “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Further-more, from heaven’s perspective, “there is one body, and one Spirit, … one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Jesus Built But One Church

While addressing Peter, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). In this verse “my church” is singular, and is modified by “it,” a singular pronoun. Moreover, the Lord’s “church . . . is his body” (Eph. 1:22, 23); there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4), and those who are scripturally baptized are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). There is absolutely no way to harmonize the modem concept of denominationalism with biblical teaching regarding the “one body,” or church! This is so plain it should be self-evident.

“Church” Used in Two Senses

“Church” (ekklesia) denotes the “called out.” All who are members of the Lord’s church have been “called” by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). However, “church” is used to refer to:

1. Those in a given locality, who have been “called” by the gospel, and who have joined with others of like faith to worship and work together as a local church. In this sense, we read of “the church of God . . . at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the seven churches which are in Asia,” (Rev. 1:4), etc. In keeping with this concept, Paul said “the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).

2. The church in a universal sense  consisting of all the saved, regardless of locality. When Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), he was referring to his church in the universal sense and which would be inclusive of all whose names “are written in heaven” (Heb. 12:22).

Distinctions Between The Local

Church and the Universal Church

1. In Number. There is only one universal church (Eph. 1:22, 23), whereas there are many local churches (Rom. 16:16).

2. In Beginning. The universal church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), whereas a local church can be-gin any time a plurality of people obey the gospel, and band together to function as a local church.

3. In Fellowship. Membership in the local church involves fellowship with each other (2 Cor. 6:14), whereas membership in the universal church involves fellowship with God (1 John 1:1-4), a fellowship which death does not terminate (Heb. 12:22,23; Phil. 1:21-25). Whether or not members of a local church enjoy fellowship with God depends upon whether or not they are walking “in the light” (1 John 1:7), abiding in the “doctrine of Christ” (1 John 9-11), and serving God in keeping with his revealed will (Acts 2:42; Gal. 1:6-9).

4. In Organization. The local church, when fully and scripturally organized, consists of “saints … , bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1: I), whereas the universal church has no earthly organization, headquarters, or address. Also, it should be observed that each local church is to have her own officers (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1), with each eldership shepherding the particular “flock of God” of which they are a part (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2).

Note: There are other “distinctions” between a local church and the universal church, but this is sufficient to illustrate the fact that distinctions do exist.

Denominationalizing the Church

“The church,” in the universal sense, consists of “saved” people whom the Lord has “added” thereto (Acts 2:47). “The church” universal does not consist of a multitude of churches; rather it consists of a multitude of people people who function as “branches” in Christ, “the true vine” (John 15:1-6). The idea of the church universal consisting of a multitude either of congregations or of denominations is completely foreign to the Bible. In plain language, every denomination constitutes a religious “plant” which God has not planted, and which ultimately “shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). Hence, in this article as we speak of “the church,” we have in mind all saved people (universal church), but who also, in keeping with the divine will, are members of a multitude of independent, autonomous congregations or local churches scripturally organized, scripturally named or designated, and scriptural in teaching, function, or work.

Unfortunately, due to environmental conditioning, it is difficult for many to conceive of “the church” in a purely undenominational sense. Moreover, the desire to be like the denominations around us (cf. 1 Sam. 8:1-5) has prompted many in various congregations to mimic the procedures of denominational bodies, instead of being governed by “book, chapter, and verse.” One prominent way in which this is done today is represented by:

The Sponsoring Church Arrangement  an arrangement whereby the elders of one church conceive of a work of brotherhood proportions and then solicit funds from thou-sands of sister congregations for the wherewithal to do this work. Through this arrangement the elders of the contributing churches relinquish the oversight of the funds they send, and the elders of the receiving church become totally dependent upon the funds of the contributing churches to carry out their assumed work. Local church autonomy is hereby destroyed! But more specifically, let us keep in mind that de-nominations, by definition, are “associations of congregations,” and this is exactly what is produced by the sponsoring church arrangement! Ironically, the desire to outshine the denominations has resulted in many “undenominational churches of Christ” becoming denominational by definition!

Another way to denominationalize the church is by forming human creeds. A creed can be a man-authorized written creed (cf. The Methodist Discipline), or it can even be an unwritten creed which people follow instead of the Scriptures. Legion are the churches “of Christ” (?) which take their cue from well-known preachers, or schools, or respected religious publications. We certainly do not oppose preachers per se, or schools per se, or publications per se (you are reading a publication!), but with all our might we do oppose the tendency to follow man rather than God!

Conclusion

Denominationalism, as we know it, is less than 500 years old. It is not of God. But it is so widespread that it has become difficult to even think of the Lord’s church in a purely undenominational manner. This surely pleases Satan no end! Hence, eternal vigilance is the price we must pay to make sure that we continually walk in “the old paths.” Therefore it continually behooves us to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), and to be undyingly committed to the concept of submitting to the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17) in all that we teach and practice. Consider ye well!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 18-20
July 3, 1997

By Bruce Reeves

Many times when we are trying to teach a person how to do something the best method to use is to give them an example. Have you ever tried to explain how to tie a neck tie? It is fairly simple to show someone how to do so but it is difficult to teach him without an example.

Jesus in coming to the earth did many things that stand out and I certainly am not capable of enumerating them all! But there are two things he did that stand out especially: (1) He sacrificed himself as the atonement for our sins, and (2) He offered an example of what man should be. We often times say, “Jesus was God as he is and man as he ought to be.”

One of the most difficult things to reconcile in our minds as Christians is the fact that we must suffer persecution due to our faith in Christ. In discussing our need to maintain our faith in times of tribulation, Peter points to the example and sacrifice of Jesus to give us renewed courage and de-termination. Let us consider Jesus: Our Example and Sacrifice.

Peter writes, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously: Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we are healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:21-25).

All Godly In Christ Jesus Will Suffer Persecution

If we are living for Christ, standing for the truth and opposing error we will encounter difficult times (1 Pet. 3:8-17; 4:1-4, 12-16). Jesus had enemies, not because of any failure on his part, but because he told the truth. Paul re-marked, “Do I make you my enemy because I tell you the truth?”

Jesus, Our Master, Suffered Greatly

Jesus suffered greatly, but in doing so he offered us an example of how to deal with our own difficulties (1 Pet. 2:21). “The servant is not greater than his master” (John 15:15-25). If we are following the Son of God we will suffer!

We are told by Peter that Jesus is our example. The word example comes from the Greek word hupogrammon which means “to copy or to pattern.” , Peter also tells us to “walk in His steps.” The original word for steps means “foot-prints.” We are to follow his lead!

How Is Jesus My Example?

Although Jesus unjustly suffered, he did not sin. “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth” (I Pet. 2:22). We all have the natural desire of self preservation and when we are persecuted there is the inclination to retaliate. Jesus was not some masochist that received some unnatural joy from pain, but he denied himself to do the will of his Father.

The Scripture says that when he was reviled, he reviled not again” (1 Pet. 2:23). Could he have? Did he have the capability to do so? What is the force of the statement if he had no choice? How did Jesus have the strength to not re-vile again? He committed himself to his Father; this is something he did constantly.

There Is Temptation In Suffering

Jesus understands what it is to suffer. “Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a faithful and merciful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

When one is falsely accused and misrepresented, there is great temptation to retaliate but Jesus did not do so. The Jews accused him of being a devil, wine bibber, glutton, in league with Beelzebub, blasphemer, and violator of the law. They ridiculed his claims, heaped scorn on his head and spit in his face.

Jesus Is Our Sacrifice

Jesus’ passion went beyond just being our example. He is our sacrifice (1 Pet. 2:24-25). He died that we might live unto righteousness. Without his sacrifice we would have no hope whatsoever! The least we can do is give ourselves to him in heart and soul.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 20-21
July 3, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

Last Sunday morning I caught the last part of a sermon by Charles Stanley on television. He is a well known Baptist preacher from Atlanta, Georgia and is often seen and heard on television and heard widely on radio stations across the nation. He was preaching on the plan of salvation. It was classic Baptist doctrine.

You may wonder why I would think it useful to deal with this matter. The answer is simple. Baptist doctrine has not changed on this subject. Over the years I have met people who have been taught by Baptist preachers and whose baptism followed such teaching. Some of them have argued at length that they had received scriptural baptism. I have always told them, “Not if you acted according to Baptist teaching.”

Mr. Stanley said that there is a defining moment in one’s life when he “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior.” At that moment of faith and acceptance one is saved and forgiven by the Lord. He is saved by faith and not by works. That is, no obedience is required for salvation. Somehow it is overlooked that faith is something to be developed in man and expressed by him. “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29).

It was then pointed out that this person thus saved should be baptized as a public declaration of faith and salvation. There is that “outward sign” of the “inward grace.” He said baptism declares you stand for the Lord before the world. Then he told of a woman who came forward at a service who said she had been saved forty years before but that she had never been baptized. She felt that something was missing and that she ought to publicly declare herself. Now, get the sequence here. She was saved forty years before and now felt compelled to be baptized. Don’t you see, folks, the order of things in the Baptist plan of salvation? It is salvation first, and then baptism. Baptist preachers through the years have contested in public debate with gospel preachers that one is saved at the point of faith, before and without water baptism. That is exactly what Charles Stanley preached last Sunday morning on television. What does the Bible teach about this?

Grace, Faith and Works

Is it true that we are saved by the grace of God? Of course it is. We did not earn or deserve the salvation God offers through Christ. It is by grace (Eph. 2:8-9). Now, are we saved by grace conditionally or unconditionally? If unconditionally, then either all will be saved or else God is to be blamed for those who are lost. Yet Jesus taught that many are in the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13, 14). Is grace nullified be-cause there are conditions imposed by God, who offers his favor? Of course not. Grace may be accepted or rejected. Upon no other basis could we account for the free moral agency of the sinner. God is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8-9).

Are we saved by faith? Absolutely! Numerous pas-sages show that we are saved by faith (John 3:16; Mark 16:16; Rom. 5:1-2). Faith is a conviction resting upon evidence (Heb. 11:6). “These things are written that ye might believe”(John 20:30-31). This grows into confident trust. Now, are we saved by a dead faith or an obedient faith? James said “faith without works is dead also” (Jas. 2:26). Hebrews 11 gives us a list of worthies who were justified by faith, but always when their faith expressed itself in obedience. For example, “By faith, Abel offered unto God” (v. 4); “by faith Noah … pre-pared an ark” (v. 7); “by faith Abraham … obeyed, and he went out” (v.8). The faith that saves is the faith that obeys.

Are we saved by works? What is meant by works? We are not saved by the works of the law of Moses (Rom. 3:28). We are not saved by works of human merit (Eph. 2:9; Tit. 3:5). These are works devised and carried out by man. But there are the works of God to consider. Remember John 6:29? “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” God devised it but the sinner must believe. “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). Paul lamented that his Jewish brethren went about to “establish their own righteousness” and had not “submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:1-2). Whom did God declare righteous? Those who believe “unto righteousness,” “confess unto salvation,” and “obey the gospel” (Rom. 10:10, 16). God ordained some things for us to do which activate faith. Saul asked, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:6).

If our Baptist friends could realize that grace saves us conditionally, that the faith that saves is the faith that obeys and that when God commands us to act and we, in faith, do what God said, that is a work of God’s righteousness, not our own, then much of the problem would be resolved.

Is Salvation Before or After Baptism?

This is the fundamental difference between the truth and Baptist doctrine on salvation. Consider these passages:

Mark 16:16  “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Now look at it. Where does “saved” appear? Is it before or after baptism?

Acts 2:38  “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Now look again. Where does “remission of sins” come in the passage? Before or after baptism?

Acts 22:16  “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” Once more, does “wash away thy sins” come be-fore or after baptism?

It does not take a theological degree to answer these questions.

The Danger of Baptist Doctrine

Did I hear someone say, “Don’t you know it is not nice to criticize another religion?” Well, I know some people feel that way about it, but I want you to consider the seriousness of what is at stake. Baptist doctrine is not only contrary to the Scriptures on this subject, it is downright dangerous because it leads people to believe they are saved when they have not obeyed the will of God. It is not enough to be immersed to get into the Baptist Church, it is important to be immersed for the right reason  to be saved, to gain remission of sins, to wash away sins. One who is baptized with the conviction that he was saved at that critical moment before and without baptism, could not possibly be baptized to be saved, to gain remission of sins or to wash away sins. Any doctrine which clouds and obscures the gospel plan of salvation is dangerous to the soul. Whatever truth may be taught about God, Christ, the Bible, upright moral behavior (and Baptists do teach much truth along these lines), does not mitigate the fact that souls are deceived when they are led to believe that they are saved at a point where the Bible does not promise it. We need to kindly but firmly press this very point. Saved forty years before being baptized? Not according to the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 3-4
July 17, 1997