What Does Jesus Think?

No one needs to ask the question, "What would Jesus think?" The Lord Who is over all revealed Himself in His actions, His speech, His doctrine. His message came from the Father (John 12:48-50), the same source the Holy Spirit had to inspire the writers of the remainder of the New Testament (John 16:12-13). However, viewing the history of the church from the second century onward is to look at one departure after another from what Jesus and the apostles taught. When we read of outlandish religious news today, we need not wonder, "What would Jesus think?" We can ask, "What does Jesus think?"

Standing Up For Truth?

A letter to the editor appeared recently in the Orlando Sentinel (June 29, 2011); its contents were provocative. The writer made some marvelous statements, such as, "…the Bible…is not open for revision whenever we feel…it has become inconvenient or uncomfortable." Then consider this paragraph:

If we believe the Bible is God's word, then we presume to be equal to God when we presume to change it. If we do not believe it to be the word of God, then our opinions about its contents have no legitimacy.

Amen? The only problem is that the topic concerned what is happening in the Presbyterian Church. If we are going to go by the Bible, then where is the authority for the Presbyterian Church to exist? Where is the authority for a national council to write church policy? We sympathize with the writer when he says, "There are specific statements in the Bible regarding the lifestyle of some who would be ordained under the church's constitutional provision." Evidently, he is not in favor of homosexuals being ordained to the ministry, which is understandable, but he does not realize that denominationalism itself is not authorized.

He adds another great line: "I don't want a religion whose truth can change at the whim of a generation or someone in power." He closes by once again lauding the Bible's truths. We appreciate his determination to stand with the Scriptures on the issue of homosexuality. He is right that the Bible condemns the practice throughout—under every covenant (Gen. 19:4-5; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:18-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Jude 7). What he does not realize is that, when the floodgates of error have been open for nearly 500 years, one sandbag will not stem the tide.

In other words, how many other Bible truths has the Presbyterian Church already violated? First, they do not have the right to exist, since denominationalism is condemned in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:10-13) and violates the plea of Jesus for unity (John 17:20-21). Second, although John Calvin and Professor Girardeau condemned the use of instrumental music in worship, most Presbyterians participate in this unauthorized addition. When the Presbyterian Church allowed women to be elders and ministers, how many protested? So now, it is proposed to allow homosexuals to be ministers; how long will it be until society prevails over this teaching of the Bible?

It may not sound as though this article is very sympathetic to the plight of the letter-writer, which is not true. We lament with him the downward trend in society and in denominations to tolerate and accept sinful practices. A victory anywhere would be appreciated. However, it must be pointed out that this is not the first time that this religious group has departed from the Scriptures. It was not Biblical to form this group, although the goal of reformation was not a bad one. The idea of restoration was a better one because reformation stopped short of going all the way back to the New Testament. For example, Presbyterians retained sprinkling from Roman Catholicism; had they returned to the Bible, they would be immersing people instead.

The United Church of Christ

According to a July 7, 2011 Orlando Sentinel news item, on July 1-5 the biennial General Synod of the United Church of Christ met. Do these words sound even remotely Biblical? Does anyone recall reading about a biennial meeting of the church in Jerusalem, Galatia, or with the seven churches of Asia? Were there any General Synods spoken of? Anyone who is familiar with the Bible would certainly wonder where this terminology comes from. Also, in the New Testament, there is no United Church of Christ, although we do read of the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16). According to Wikipedia:

The Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches united in 1957 to form the UCC. These two denominations, which were themselves the result of earlier unions, had their roots in Congregational, Christian, Evangelical, and Reformed denominations.

Unfortunately, these groups did not think about going back to the Bible in order to abide by its teachings regarding salvation and worship; they just assimilated into a larger group and learned to ignore their differences. Now they have engaged themselves to be even more broad-minded at the expense of truth. One of their agenda items was to ratify a seven-year process which will lead to them fully recognizing baptisms between the United Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church (all quotes are from page G1).

The first response might be, "Why would anyone care?" Apparently, this has been a big deal among certain religious groups. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops already approved this agreement, as has the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the Reformed Church of America, and the Christian Reformed Church. So, now all these man-made churches are going to recognize each other's baptisms? This may be significant to them, but it is not to Jesus—except, perhaps, as just one further departure from God.

Baptism

Two questions of paramount importance must be asked: 1) What is the purpose for baptism? 2) What does the New Testament teach about the way one is to be baptized? The New Testament teaches that a person is baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. One does not need to be a theologian in order to arrive at this conclusion. Any individual can discern its purpose.

As one reads the New Testament, the purpose and mode of baptism are easy to comprehend. In Matthew 3:6, we see that John was baptizing. Mark 1:4 declares the reason for baptizing. It was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. In other words, people repented of their sins, and John baptized them so they would be forgiven. Luke records the same message (3:3).

John records that both John and Jesus were baptizing people (John 3:23-26). Thus, anyone who begins reading any gospel account of Jesus' life will see that baptism is part of the gospel message from the beginning. When the reader completes each book, he finds baptism is part of the great commission. People who heard the gospel preached were to be baptized (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus put it this way in Mark 16:16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Luke records Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of sins should be preached (Luke 24:47). If there is any doubt that forgiveness of sins comes through baptism, Luke removed it as he records Peter telling the very first group of men hearing the gospel what to do—repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

The purpose for baptism, then, in the New Testament is clear, and other passages only shed more light on it, such as Ananias telling Saul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16; cf. 1 Peter 3:21). Now none of these verses diminishes from the fact that faith in God and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, must precede baptism, as well as repentance. These verses just show the necessity of the final step in obtaining the forgiveness of one's past sins.

But for what purpose do the five religious groups mentioned in the newspaper article baptize? It has nothing to do with sins being forgiven. Most of them will tell you that it is to remove the original sin a child is born with. Of course, children are not born in sin, but even if they were, not one verse of Scripture says a word about baptizing infants. Not one word is said about baptism having anything to do with original sin, a phrase which itself cannot be found in the Bible.

The next problem with these religious groups' "baptism" is that it is no such thing. The Greek word for baptism was never translated; the Greek word baptisma was simply made into an English word. The Greek word means "to dip, to plunge, to immerse." One does not need to know the Greek language to understand that the sprinkling and pouring these five churches use never constituted baptism in the New Testament. John baptized near much water (John 3:23). Philip and the queen's treasurer went down into the water, where Philip baptized him, and then they both came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). Such an action is totally unnecessary if all Philip needed was a little water to sprinkle on the treasurer. Furthermore, baptism is clearly defined as a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-5).

The religious groups in the article, then, do not immerse, as was practiced throughout the New Testament, nor do they baptize for the purpose stated there, either. So what difference does it make if they recognize each other's baptisms? The point is that God does not recognize any of them. Until their people are immersed in order to have their sins washed away, they remain in their sins. They remain lost and are yet in need of salvation.

Proud "Firsts"

The "baptism" measure was passed on July 4th, probably for symbolic reasons. It was also the day that the Antoinette Brown Award was handed out. Since this award cannot be found in the Scriptures, one must read this news item to find out what it means. It was named after the first woman who was ordained as a minister in the United Church of Christ. What does Jesus think about that? He thinks that what the apostle Paul wrote, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit, is still valid—that a woman is not permitted to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). No one who dares to violate this principle could in any way be characterized as "poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3). No one who intentionally violates Biblical principles should be given an award for it; they should be rebuked, just as John rebuked Herod for marrying someone it was not lawful for him to marry (Matt. 14:1-5).

The theme of this year's gathering was:

"Imagine What's Possible.
God is Still Speaking."

We have a better suggestion:

"Visualize the truth.
God's Word hasn't changed."

The brief news item says that this religious group is "known for ordaining the first African-American minister, the first woman minister and first openly gay minister." Usually, "Two out of Three Ain't Bad" (as per Meat Loaf's 1978 song), but in this case, two out of three are unscriptural. One wonders when this religious group first "ordained" an African-American minister. Perhaps they have never heard of Marshall Keeble, who, it is estimated, baptized 40,000 people (by immersion, as the Bible teaches)—and a large number of these were immersed before the United Church of Christ was even formed. The UCC was not the first denomination to ordain an African-American (Baptists, for one, did earlier). This statement cannot be correct.

The other two "firsts" are contrary to the Bible and can only be considered shameful. Why would anyone want to be known as the first group to ordain a woman as minister or a homosexual? Why not claim to be the first to ordain a fornicator? His live-in could attend the award ceremony, and afterward they could talk about how the system of marriage is archaic and unnecessary (except for homosexuals, who apparently need it). Why not give an award to one who is openly idolatrous? He could bring his shrine to a false deity to the podium. In one hand he could wave his idol, and in the other hand he could hold up his award. Maybe someone could design an award for thievery—or he could just steal someone else's award. Say, why not give an award for an openly drunk minister? It will be fun when he slurs his words during the acceptance speech. Of course, it's absurd. Praising any sin is!

Biblical Principles

What does Jesus think about such occurrences? The teachings of the New Testament tell us.

1. There is but one church (Matt. 16:18). Jesus gave His life for it (Acts 20:28). He nourishes it and cherishes it (Eph. 5:29). He is head over it (Eph. 1:22-23). He has only one church (body) (Eph. 4:4). No division ought to exist within it (1 Cor. 1:10).

2. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). So when people disagree with Jesus, where do they get their authority from? Right. They have no authority to contradict what Jesus and His apostles taught. An ounce of humility would prevent a pound of rebellion (Matt. 5:3). We must be like those who were baptized (immersed) on the Day of Pentecost and continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). This would prevent us from having councils and synods in order to make erroneous decisions and hand out bogus awards with authority that we do not possess.

3. Jesus said, "But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). He is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Where did we ever get the idea that we could design Christianity to suit ourselves? Perhaps Cain was the inspiration. God refused to honor his offering, nor will He listen to us if our goal is only to please ourselves.

4. Christians who desire to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24) must only practice such things as are authorized (Col. 3:17). No authority exists in the New Testament to sing with instrumental accompaniment or handclapping. Neither do we have authority to offer up incense. We are authorized to sing, pray, give, observe the Lord's death, and preach the Word.

5. Jesus taught that people must repent of their sins or perish (Luke 13:3). He would not be applauding someone who is openly a homosexual. He did not appoint such men as apostles. He taught men to be pure in heart (Matt. 5:8). Peter repeated an Old Testament principle: "Be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 1 Peter 1:15-16). Continuing in an action that is defined as sin is not repentance and does not constitute walking in the light (1 John 1:7).

6. Jesus would say that the one who fails to keep His commandments (such as repentance of sins like homosexuality or ordaining women as ministers) does not know Him (1 John 2:3-4).

7. Someone is certain to cite Matthew 7:1-5. First, however, read verse 6 and explain how to obey it without making a judgment. Jesus was only opposed to unrighteous judgments (John 7:24). Besides, none of these things are "judgments"; they involve a "thus saith the Lord." There is a vast difference between being imperfect and openly flouting the Scriptures.