Does Picking Up Sticks Deserve the Death Penalty? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1259

Does Picking Up Sticks Deserve the Death Penalty?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In his book, Losing Faith in Faith, denominational-preacher-turned-atheist, Dan Barker, wrote a chapter titled “Is the Bible a Good Moral Guide?” In that chapter, he argued that the Bible is not an acceptable guide for human behavior. In fact, he claimed that the God of the Bible is “an immoral person.” As proof of God’s “immorality,” Barker referred to a brief incident found in Numbers 15. In that chapter, a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Those who found the man took him to Moses and Aaron, who put him under guard until they could ascertain from God how this man should be punished. According to Numbers 15:35, the “Lord said to Moses, ‘The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.’ ” Writing about this episode, Barker quipped:

If there were something dangerous about picking up sticks on Saturday or Sunday, then humanity should know it by now. Since we all agree that such an act in itself is harmless, then whoever executes a person for committing such a “crime” is an immoral person. Even if there were something wrong about picking up sticks, it is not so terribly wrong that it deserves capital punishment (1992, p. 329).

Is it true that God was wrong in ordering this man to be stoned?
Barker claims that “we all agree” that picking up sticks on Saturday or Sunday is harmless. However, Barker does not take into account that the man was in direct violation of a specific command issued by God to the Israelites. One of the Ten Commandments specifically stated: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work” (Exodus 20:8-10). We do not all agree that disobedience to a direct command from God is harmless. Implied in Barker’s assessment of God’s punishment in this incident is the idea that Barker (and many skeptics like him) seems to think that he knows disobeying a “petty” command from God could not cause harm. In truth, there is no way that Barker could know what would have happened if this man’s disobedience was not punished as it was.
Often, disobedience to the commands of one who is in a position to know more about a particular situation could result in harm or death for multiplied thousands. For instance, why does the United States military insist on obedience to officers even in the minutest details? After all, “we all agree” that wearing a pair of boots that is not shined properly is a “harmless” activity, and folding a shirt incorrectly is no great crime. Why, then, does the military insist upon obedience even in the most minuscule ordinances? The simple truth is that laxity in obedience to small regulations breeds laxity in obedience to other ordinances. And if that laxity is not punished quickly and decisively, it has the potential to be contagious, and spread throughout the entire group or organization. And while inadvertent missteps in dress might not receive extremely harsh punishment, openly rebellious behavior to those of higher rank certainly would carry a significant punishment.
Let us examine how that might work. Suppose that the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military declared that only black boots are to be worn by the troops. Then suppose that one of the troops rebelliously decides he does not want to wear black boots, and thus dons a pair of bright-red boots. He marches with his fellow troops, and his commanding officers do nothing to punish him. His fellow troops see that his blatant indiscretion goes unpunished, so they decide to rebel and wear red boots. Soon, half the army is wearing red boots, a scenario that does not seem that “harmful.” When they are called to battle, however, the importance of the Commander’s regulations becomes evident. The enemy is dressed exactly like the U.S. military, except the enemy army wears red boots. The only way to distinguish between friend and foe happened to be the boot color, and due to the rebellious disobedience of the one man who was doing something “harmless,” thousands of U.S. troops are killed by friendly fire. A direct command from the Commander in Chief almost always houses an important purpose, about which many of those who are supposed to follow the command know little or nothing. Many times, only the Commander in Chief knows how harmful disobedience to the command can be.
In the same way, God issued a direct command. That command was blatantly disobeyed. How harmful could that one man’s disobedience have been? What if Joshua had seen this man’s disobedience go unpunished, and when God told him to march around Jericho thirteen times, Joshua decided that one time would be enough? Or what if the Israelites saw this man go unpunished, and thus decided that eating uncooked pork was not that big of a deal either? Or suppose that the Israelites had seen this man’s disobedience, decided they would break the other nine commandments, and therefore began to murder and commit adultery. The truth is, God is in a position to know much more about the situation than humans. He knew exactly what would have happened if this man’s disobedience was not punished.
Foreseeing the validity of this reasoning, Dan Barker conceded that punishment might be necessary, but claimed that the death penalty was too harsh. Says who? Suppose this man’s disobedience, if not punished with death, would have resulted in the moral collapse of the entire Israelite nation? Is there anyway Dan Barker could know that such would not be the case. Or suppose that this man’s disobedience to a direct command from God, if not punished by the death penalty, would have caused the Israelites to neglect sanitation laws instituted by God, bringing in a plague that killed thousands. What penalty would be appropriate for a man who was responsible for the death of thousands? In truth, only God could know what would have happened if this man’s disobedience had gone unpunished, and only God could have known what would have happened if that punishment was not the death penalty. When Dan Barker and other skeptics demand that God’s punishment in this (or other) cases is too harsh, they do so without reference to any objective, moral standard. Their sole defense is a wave of the hand and a “we all feel” statement that is designed to draw in their readers emotionally.
The Bible says that God knows “all things” (1 John 3:20). Since that is the case, only God can truly determine what is harmful and what is not harmful, and only God has the prerogative of determining the proper punishment for disobedience. Today, we no longer are under Old Testament laws concerning the Sabbath, but we are under the New Testament laws established by Jesus. In comparing disobedience to the two laws, the writer of Hebrews concluded:

Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace (10:28-29)?

Disobedience to God is a serious offense. It often is the case that those who are the most disobedient to His commandments are the ones who attempt to minimize the importance of obedience.

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3747

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A gentleman who was struggling with his beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible recently contacted our offices questioning why Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that “no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12; cf. Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29). Since other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus worked “many signs” (John 12:37; 20:30-31; 3:2; Acts 2:22), how could Jesus truthfully and consistently say, “no sign shall be given to this generation”? According to certain Bible critics, Jesus was a false prophet since His “prediction that no sign would be given to that generation is clearly false” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 114; cf. Wells, 2010). How can a Christian reasonably and biblically respond to such an assertion?

Sadly, Bible critics (and some Christians) are fond of disregarding the context in which biblical statements are found. Yet, no statement can be understood properly without some kind of background or contextual information. Words mean different things depending on how, when, and where they are spoken. Figures of speech abound in all cultures around the world (cf. Lyons, 2010). Truthful people, for example, have been joking, exaggerating, and using sarcasm for millennia (cf. Job 12:2; Psalm 58:3), all the while rightly expecting their listeners to interpret their language accurately, and without accusation of lying. Unfortunately, skeptics of the Bible’s inspiration often ignore much of the necessary information needed to properly understand Scripture.

When Jesus first made the statement, “no sign will be given” to this generation (Matthew 12:39; Luke 11:29), He had just healed a person who was blind, mute, and demon-possessed (Matthew 12:22; Luke 11:14). Notice that, rather than acknowledging that the great miracle Jesus worked was proof of His deity (John 20:30-31), the hard-hearted Pharisees alleged that His power came from the devil (Matthew 12:24). They did not simply turn away from Jesus; they turned 180 degrees away from the direction that such miracles led the honest and good-hearted truth-seekers. And Jesus’ enemies had not simply seen one miracle. Earlier in Matthew 12, Jesus had healed a man with a withered hand (vss. 9-13). How did the Pharisees react then? Rather than acknowledge the power of Christ, they “plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him” (vs. 14). The fact is, by this time in Jesus’ ministry He had already worked a number of miracles (Matthew 11:4-5), and many of the scribes and Pharisees absolutely refused to believe in Him (cf. Matthew 9:32-34). Regardless of what Jesus did or said, some of His enemies would never be convinced (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; see Butt, 2003).

So what did Jesus mean when He said on two different occasions that “no sign” would be given to “this generation” except “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29)? Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ desire to see a sign. But they had already witnessed and heard about many of Jesus’ miracles. They wanted something “more.” They sought “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16; Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11, emp. added). Exactly what Jesus’ enemies meant by this, we may not know. What we do know is that while on Earth Jesus manifested His power over nature, disease, demon, and death (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), yet the Pharisees said they wanted more. It seems, as Burton Coffman noted, they “meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to man’s curiosity” (Coffman, 1984, p. 179). Jesus, however, always rejected doing such miracles. He refused to turn stones to bread or to jump from the temple’s pinnacle simply because Satan challenged Him to do so (Matthew 4:1-7). Jesus could have performed any miracle that He wanted—whether when tempted by Satan, prodded by Herod (Luke 23:8-12), or tested by the Pharisees. He could have pulled rabbits from hats for the sole purpose of amusing people. He could have turned His Jewish enemies into stones or given a person three eyes. He could have commanded that it literally rain cats and dogs. He could have lit the robes of the Pharisees on fire with the snap of his fingers and told them that hell would be ten times as hot. He could have done any number of wonders. But the insincere Pharisees would see none of that (i.e., “no sign [like these] will be given”).

What sign would be given? Other than the kinds of miracles that Christ’s enemies had already rejected, the only other sign Jesus prophesied was “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29)—Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.

Most certainly, Jesus performed miracles. And though Jesus “humbled himself...taking the form of a bondservant” (Philippians 2:7-8), He refused to get on the lowly, perpetually defiled spiritual level of His enemies. He worked no miracle of the kind that the Pharisees wished to see. But make no mistake, He worked plenty of the kind that provide honest-hearted people sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that He is, indeed, “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-31).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The Unpardonable Sin,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2272.

Coffman, Burton (1984), Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Lyons, Eric (2010), “The ‘Twelve,’” http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/177.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “The Very Works that I Do Bear Witness of Me,” Reason & Revelation, 26[3]:17-23, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2857.

McKinsey, Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Wells, Steve (2010), “Did Jesus Perform Many Signs and Wonders?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/signs.html.

Chalk One up for Academic Freedom by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=776

Chalk One up for Academic Freedom

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For several decades now, the theory of evolution has maintained an unwarranted, undeserved strangle hold on practically every public school science curriculum across our nation. Those who have dared question the beloved dogma have been intimidated, threatened, fired, and mocked for their dissenting views. One of the primary reasons for this censure is that the tenuous theory does not find evidentiary backing from any major field of science. While its proponents boast about the theory’s virtual factuality and the mounds of evidence that “prove” it to be the fundamental scientific theory, hard core, experimental evidence in favor of the theory has been lacking for years—a fact which has been admitted by evolutionists in their more candid moments (see Miller, 2004).
It is refreshing to see that there are those who have the courage to stand up and allow the purported evidence for evolution to be examined critically. On November 8, 2005, the Kansas Board of Education adopted new public school science standards that open the door for critical evaluation of the erroneous theory of evolution, as well as for consideration of alternative ideas of origins such as intelligent design. An article by John Hanna of the Associated Press explained that the new standards “say high school students must understand the major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that basic Darwinian theory...has been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology” (2005).
Of course, the proponents of evolution are irate. Leading evolutionist and educator Eugenie Scott was quoted as saying, “We can predict this fight happening elsewhere” (Hanna, 2005). I think they certainly can predict that this fight will happen elsewhere. It is high time that the theory of evolution be evaluated critically and be seen for what it really is: a fallacious theory based more upon a belligerent adherence to the philosophy of materialism than an honest assessment of scientific discovery.
Kansas Board of Education member, Kathy Martin, responded to the board’s decision by saying: “Students will be informed and not indoctrinated” (Hanna, 2005). Her assessment hit the nail on the head. If evolution is such a well-grounded, virtual fact, it should be able to withstand a critical evaluation, and it should outstrip competing ideas. The fact that evolutionists do not want any other information considered is a telling hint that, deep down, they know their precious doctrine cannot withstand the test. In desperate efforts to keep evolution entrenched, evolutionists will claim that all other ideas (such as intelligent design) are unscientific, only held by ignorant radicals, backdoor advances of fundamentalist Christianity, and other such diversionary tactics. In reality, they are simply trying to draw attention away from the real issue: Does accurate, scientific evidence confirm the theory of evolution? Those on the Kansas Board of Education, and an increasing number of truth-seekers, are beginning to realize that the overwhelming answer to that question is a resounding “No!”

REFERENCES

Hanna, John (2005), “Evolution Critics Score Win in Kansas,” [On-line], URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1295774.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Atheist Finally ‘Sobers Up,’” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2662.

Founders En Masse Advocated Christianity by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2089

Founders En Masse Advocated Christianity

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Popular propaganda spouted for half a century or more claims that the Founders and Framers of America were deists and largely irreligious men who sought to establish a secular society that celebrates all ideologies, religions, and philosophies as equally valid. This sinister “diversity” myth has inflicted untold damage on American society, bringing the nation literally to the brink of disaster.

The failure of the average citizen to examine the facts and assess the gravity of the situation is inexcusable. In reality, the religious orientation of the architects of American civilization, and their view regarding its importance to the establishment and perpetuation of the Republic, is easily ascertainable. Rather than wade through the myriad pages and books that purport to depict American history accurately, all one need do is simply reread the organic utterances issued by the Founders as they orchestrated the founding.

Though not including all those who rightly wear the appellation “Founder,” nevertheless, the Continental Congress comprised a substantial portion of those men, and they may clearly be designated quintessential Founders (see Miller, 2009, p. 3). They certainly constitute a representative cross section of the men who brought the Republic into existence. Consider one sample among many in which the Continental Congress en masse issued a proclamation to the entire population of the country on March 19, 1782:

The United States in Congress assembled...think it their indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer...that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of..., 22:137-138, emp. added).

The “Divine Redeemer” is Jesus Christ. Calling for Christ’s religion to “cover the earth as the waters cover the seas” is a direct allusion to two Old Testament passages—Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14.

 The Founders insisted that the stability of the Republic depends on the Christian religion, with its moral principles and spiritual framework. They felt that though other religions may certainly be tolerated in America, the peculiar doctrines and practices of those religions must not be allowed to alter the laws and institutions of the nation. Nor must those doctrines and practices do any physical harm to Americans or violate Christian morality (e.g., polygamy, homosexuality, and abortion). The Founders would be horrified at the notion of “political correctness” and its corrosive, destructive influence. They would have difficulty believing that Americans would ever even consider allowing Sharia law to be included in our courts, schools, or government. The Founders never asked that Hinduism cover the Earth, nor Islam, Buddhism, or Atheism. Rather, they begged God to cover the Earth with the religion of Christ as thoroughly and completely as the waters cover the oceans of the world.

REFERENCES

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The Bible's Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=806&b=Acts

The Bible's Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to numerous skeptics, the Bible is inconsistent regarding whether or not water baptism is necessary (e.g., Drange, 1996; Morgan, 2003; cf. Wells, 2001). In Dennis McKinsey’s book, Biblical Errancy (2000), he lists several verses that teach the need for one to be baptized in order to be saved (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.), but then he lists four verses (John 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:14,16,17) which allegedly teach that baptism “is not a necessity” (p. 61). According to these men, Jesus and Paul were confused regarding the purpose of baptism.
There is no doubt that Jesus and His apostles taught the essentiality of being immersed in water for salvation. After Jesus commissioned His apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” He stated that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16; cf. Matthew 28:19). The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, were told: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before becoming a Christian, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The biblical solution to the problem of soul-damning sin is that the person who has heard the Gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p. 94).] According to Peter, “baptism,” corresponding to Noah’s salvation through water, “now saves us…(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Although baptism is no less, nor more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved, the New Testament clearly teaches that water immersion is the point at which a person is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If it is the case then that baptism is essential for salvation, then why did the apostle John write: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3, emp. added)? And why did the apostle Paul write to the church at Corinth: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name…. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17, emp. added)? Do these statements indicate that baptism is not necessary for a person to be saved as skeptics allege? No, they do not.
First, John did not indicate that Jesus thought baptism was unnecessary; he merely stated the fact that Jesus did not personally do the baptizing; rather, His disciples did (John 4:2). The phrase in 4:1 regarding Jesus “baptizing” more disciples than John is simply a figure of speech where a person is represented as doing something when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph indicated on one occasion that his brothers sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). This is a well-known principle in law—a person who acts through another to break the law (e.g., paying someone to commit murder) is deemed by authorities to be guilty of breaking the law himself. Similarly, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Thus, this passage actually implies that Jesus commanded that His listeners be baptized. It in no way contradicts teachings found elsewhere in the Bible.
Second, Paul’s statements in his letter to the church at Corinth must be taken in their proper context in order to understand their true meaning. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul was dealing with the division that was plaguing the Corinthian Christians. He had heard of the controversy in Corinth, and begged them to stand united, and resolve their differences.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

Later, Paul added:

For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:3-7).

When a person reads 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 in view of the problem of division in Corinth that Paul was addressing in chapter one and throughout this letter, he or she has a better understanding of Paul’s statements regarding baptism. He was not indicating that baptism was unnecessary, but that people should not glory in the one who baptizes them. Some of the Corinthians were putting more emphasis on who baptized them, than on the one body of Christ to which a person is added when he or she is baptized (cf. Acts 2:41,47; Ephesians 4:4). Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize any more Corinthians than he did, lest they boast in his name, rather than in the name of Christ (1:15). Likely, this is the same reason why “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” As Albert Barnes surmised: “[I]f he [Jesus—EL] had baptized, it might have made unhappy divisions among his followers: those might have considered themselves most worthy or honoured who had been baptized by him” (1956, p. 213, emp. in orig.). Paul understood that the fewer people he personally baptized, the less likely they were to rejoice in his name. [In 1 Corinthians 1:13, Paul implied that the only way to be saved is to be baptized into the name of Christ, saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”] Paul’s desire was for converts to tie themselves to the Savior, and not to himself. He knew that “there is salvation in no one else” but Jesus; “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul concerned himself with preaching, and, like Jesus, left others to do the baptizing.
When Paul stated: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” he meant that preaching was his main work, and that others could immerse the converts. He did not mean by this statement that baptism is unimportant, but that the baptizer is inconsequential. Consider this: If Paul did not baptize, but preached, and, if others baptized those who heard Paul’s teachings, what can we infer about the content of Paul’s teachings? The truth is, at some point, he must have instructed the unsaved to be baptized (which is exactly what occurred in Corinth—read Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Similar to how we logically infer from the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism (Acts 8:36-39), that when Philip “preached Jesus to him” (8:35), he informed the eunuch of the essentiality of baptism, we can truthfully affirm that Paul taught that baptism is essential for salvation. The allegation that Paul and Jesus ever considered baptism non-essential, simply is unfounded.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Drange, Theodore M. (1996), “The Argument from the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.
Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

What did the first Christians believe? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/029-firstchristiansbeliefs.html

What did the first Christians believe?

Some two thousand years have passed since a Carpenter in Galilee began proclaiming a message that would change the world. He said He would form a fellowship that would last forever (Matthew 16:18). Shortly after His death the church of Christ was established. His teachings were scattered as with the wind to all parts of the world.

But that was long ago. Much has happened since then. Many false teachers have arisen as Jesus predicted. In our time people are confronted with such an array of conflicting doctrines and practices that many do not know what to believe.

Why not go to the source and ask: “What did the first Christians believe? What was the church like in the beginning?”

In the Bible, in the New Testament, the first century church is described.

It is regrettable that in our time many who call themselves Christians do not really believe much of anything! The first Christians had a faith that conquered the world.


What is faith?

By accepting reliable testimony we can know things we did not experience personally. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

Have you heard someone say, “I'll only believe that when I see it”? This is not reasonable, because if you see something, faith is not required.

Faith is the acceptance of testimony. For example, how do you know that Socrates was a Greek philosopher? You know this by faith. You believe what Plato and others wrote about him, although Socrates himself did not leave any writings.

Faith in God is based on evidence and testimony. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). The creation proves God's existence. We accept the proof.

If you saw the words, “God is good,” formed with sea shells on the sand by the sea, what would you conclude? Could anyone make you believe that the waves had accidentally washed the shells into such a form? No, you would know that someone had been there before you, who formed the words on the sand.

When we observe the intricate systems of life on earth, we know Someone made these things: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20).

John says that Christian faith rests on testimony: “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son” (1 John 5:9, 10).

We accept many things by faith in the testimony of men. God's testimony is greater. There is no excuse for not accepting the truths to which He testifies. If we reject God's testimony we are calling Him a liar.

Faith is a valid method of gaining knowledge. Some say, “You do not know God exists, you just believe He exists.” They are mistaken. I know God exists. My knowledge is based on faith, that is true. But the testimony is reliable and the evidence is conclusive, irrefutable.

Do you know that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo? Yes, you know this, but not because you participated in the battle, but by faith in written testimony.

In the same way, we know that Jesus rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Christian faith is based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their testimony is recorded in the New Testament.

John testifies: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life - the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us - that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us” (1 John 1:1-3).

Peter testifies: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).


The first Christians believed God.

“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

The first Christians not only believed that God exists, they also believed His testimony, the word of God.

“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).


The first Christians believed the Scriptures.

Jesus taught that the Scriptures are trustworthy. He said. “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

Jesus confirmed events in the Old Testament. He referred to the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4). He mentions the murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35). He speaks about Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37, 38). He mentions the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24). He refers to Lot's flight from Sodom and to his wife who became a pillar of salt (Luke 17:28, 29, 32). Jesus refers to the time when it did not rain for three years and six months because of Elijah's prayer (Luke 4:25). He mentions the healing of Naaman the leper (Luke 4:27). He said that “Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish” (Matthew 12:40).

People who deny the truth of these happenings in the Old Testament have no right to call themselves Christians because they do not believe Christ. He taught that these things happened. As He told the Jews: “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46, 47).

The first Christians considered the New Testament writings to be Scripture. Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16). Paul quotes from the gospel of Luke (Luke 10:7) as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18).

The first Christians believed that the Scriptures were inspired by God: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17), “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20, 21). The words used came from God: “These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Corinthians 2:13). Through “prophetic Scriptures” the gospel would be “made known to all nations” (Romans 16:26).


The first Christians believed Jesus.

They believed that He is “the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 16:16). They believed that He rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-6). They believed that He has “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). They believed that He is “the head of the body, the church” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). They believed that He is coming again (Revelation 1:7). They believed that He will “be Judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:39-43).


The first Christians believed there is one faith.

Paul speaks of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). He warns, “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). Jude writes that Christians must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).


The first Christians believed that Jesus is the Savior of the world.

This message they called 'the gospel', 'the good news'.

They believed that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, 24) and that salvation is only through Christ, “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). He is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

They viewed faith and confession as essential: “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10).

They believed that a spiritual rebirth is required. “Unless one is born again ... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5).

The first Christians believed that this spiritual rebirth takes place at baptism from which one rises “to walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-5).

Paul explained that “according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

Peter commanded, “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). They believed that sins are washed away at baptism: “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16) and that baptism “now saves us ... through the resurrection of Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Jesus declared, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).


What did the first Christians believe?

Based on conclusive evidence and divine testimony, they believed in God, and that He makes His will known through Scriptures. They believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. They believed that there is one faith and that Christians must maintain that faith. They taught that faith, repentance, confession and baptism are essential for salvation.

To be saved we must believe what the first Christians believed. Only if we have their faith can we have the salvation and hope they had. Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

THE truth by Gary Rose

If you want truth and you just can't seem to find it, then you are looking in the wrong place. Human beings make up all sorts of crazy things and are foolish enough to really believe them. There is only one real truth- and it comes from God!!! Anything else is untrue, period!!

Jesus said...




John, Chapter 14 (World English Bible)
 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.



Now, if you are open-minded, you probably will investigate further, if not, then you will just believe what you want, regardless. The thing is, if you expect to get to heaven by some other way, you will be in the position of arguing with Jesus.

I am quite certain that you will lose - both the argument and heaven as well.