Truth Magazine

By C. G. “Cony” Caldwell

The New Testament is clear on the point that God dwells in some men. For example read the following:

No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us: hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hash sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him (1 John 4:12-16)

Another obvious message of these few verses is that we dwell in God. Three times in the same passage which says that God dwells in us, John says that we dwell in God. The question we are, of course, going to be concerned about first is this: “Is the indwelling equivalent to personal, direct possession of the other person?” A point to remember is that the same thing is said of our dwelling in God that is said of God dwelling in us. I believe John explains what he means by this terminology:

As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal. These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. And as for you, the anointing which ye receive of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him (I John 2:24-27).

Notice the connection between the language of the two passages. God abides in us and we abide in Him (1 John 4). That which is heard abides in us and we abide in the Father and in the Son (1 John 2). John speaks of our being anointed or taught and of the relationship of that to our abiding in Him.

The New Testament is also clear in informing us that Christ dwells in some men:

l am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and 1 in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they ae burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; and so shall ye be my disciples. Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love (John 15:1-10).

Strikingly, this passage which says that Christ dwells in us, also repeatedly affirms that WE dwell in Christ. The question again becomes, “Is the indwelling personal, direct possession?” Obviously, to me at least, Jesus is speaking of the intimate relationship or communion between the divine being and obedient, loving Christians. That relationship is based upon the communication between them. The divine beings love men and have communicated the heavenly desire for fellowship with men and the responsibilities attendant thereto. Christians on the other hand have listened to, responded to, and been influenced by the divine beings to share spiritual character and life. The relationship is so strong and close that each is said to dwell in the other!

The most controverted aspect of the indwelling topic is the involvement of the Holy Spirit. He also dwells in us but notice also that we dwell in Him:

But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of Cod dwelleth in you. But if any man bath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you (Rom. 8:9-I1; cf. I Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20).

Paul explains that he is not discussing personal possession but has in mind a spiritual relationship between the personages of Deity and those who will be saved:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus …. who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit . . . . So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God (Rom. 8:1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14).

Having the Holy Spirit in us, and our being in the Holy Spirit, is to have such an intimate relationship that we are led by Him and influenced by what He says. Having the Holy Spirit in us is not something mystical, mysterious, or spiritualistic in the sense that we cannot relate to the terminology or understand it. It is not possession of the body or personal residence in a literal sense.

Persons “dwelling in” other persons is not an uncommon expression. We speak of: (a) parents living in their children, or of our being able to see a parent in his child; (b) lovers having each other in their hearts; (c) teachers abiding in their students; and, (d) national leaders possessing the hearts of their people. Do such expressions demand personal possession?

But now to the real point of this article. What is it practically to have the divine Beings in us? Many fine articles have argued the “how” of indwelling. I want to discuss what the practical import of it is in the life of the Christian!

I. When others dwell in you, you love them with a virtually unbounded love. Isn’t that true of parent and child, husband and wife, etc. A mother will give her life for her child whom she holds dear in her heart. Listen to what Jesus said about that:

If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me (John 14:23-24).

II. When others dwell in you, you think about them “all the time.” You can hardly talk to young lovers about anything other than the object of their love because that is all they think about. Parents think about those children who are in their hearts “all the time.” Now that should be true of Christians who have God in their hearts. Just here let us put two obviously parallel Scriptures together:

And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with you heart to the Lord; . . . Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God. And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16-17).

If all that I do is done in the name of the Lord and with thanksgiving, I must be thinking about Christ when I make all my decisions for living. If Christ dwells in me, I will think about Him. If I do not, that is evidence that He does not dwell in me!

III. When others dwell in you, you develop the same attitudes about things that they have. It is amazing how much husband and wife come to think alike when they have a good marriage. It is important that Christians marry Christians for this very reason. We become so much a part of one another that our thinking is influenced by the other in almost every facet of life. Paul taught that we should come to have the same attitudes that God has and that such is evidence of Divine indwelling:

Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glory God therefore in your body (I Cor. 6: 15-20).

We will come to think about right living, about sin, about things of the world, about spiritual things, etc., like God does if we are truly a temple of the Holy Spirit. If our relationship is good and we are influenced by the teaching of the Spirit, we will dwell in Him and He in us.

IV. When others dwell in you, you develop the same attitudes toward people that they have. Whether right or wrong, if my wife likes someone I tend to like them and if she is hesitant about being comfortable around them, I am also hesitant. With regard to spiritual things, John put it this way:

No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, Cod abideth in us, and his love is perfected to us: hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father bath sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God. And we know and have believed the love which God bath in us. Cod is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him (I John 4:12-16).

V. When others dwell in you, you readily respond when they ask you to do something. Wives who really love their husbands and have them in their hearts do not feel compelled to “submit.” They gladly seek to please their husbands by responding to their wishes. And husbands do the same! Listen again to John on spiritual matters:

And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that with, 1 know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily bath the lave of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him: he that with he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked (I John 2:3-6).

VI. When others dwell in you, you want to be what they want you to be so that they will love you and respect you. One of the greatest incentives to me to be the right kind of person is my godly wife who is in my heart and my two children who are Christians and are also in my heart. If God is in my heart, I will want to be what He wants me to be so that I will not disappoint Him. I don’t want my wife to see me drunk, cheating others, engaging in immorality or public immodesty, and certainly I should not want God to see me that way. If I don’t care how God sees me, He does not dwell in my heart:

And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him (I John 2:28-29).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 3, 1983

By Jimmy Tuten

Some time ago, there was a faithful dog which was a constant companion of a small child. One day both dog and child disappeared. A diligent search by parents, friends, and neighbors proved to be fruitless. The child could not be found.

After several hours the dog returned home, but was covered with blood. Naturally, the father jumped to the conclusion that the dog had become vicious and killed the child. The dog must be destroyed, so he got his gun and killed the dog.

A little later, the child was found in the woods unharmed. Nearby was the body of a panther that the dog had killed in his struggle to protect the child.

So often we are guilty of conclusion jumping. We take action, or at least express our opinion before considering all the facts. The result is usually unpleasant and at times irreparable damage is done.

Solomon showed the foolishness of jumping to conclusions when he said, “He that answereth (Heb. returneth a word) a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18:13). Not only do we have this problem with “Matters,” but in dealing with people as well. On this Jesus said, “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth” (Emphasis mine, J.T.)?

A man who will not hear all the facts before drawing conclusions has a Klinker in his thinker; it is almost impossible to squeeze the truth into his mind. The most difficult thing to open is a closed mind. Too, have you ever noticed how extremely difficult it is for a person to keep his mind open and his mouth shut at the same time? How wonderful an open mind is when it is matched with a closed mouth. But that’s another subject. My point is this, don’t waste a human mind by refusing to fulfil its hunger for education with facts, all the facts. When you give people a piece of your mind, then, and only then do they know the kind of mind you have.

So, be careful about what you think, say, and do. You might be guilty of shooting a dog that ought to be praised.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, p. 56
January 20, 1983

By Julian R. Snell

On the night of December 6-7 and 9-10, Harry Lewis, Christian, met Gerald Smith, Baptist, in debate at Lexington, KY. The proposition, “A child of God can so sin as to be lost in hell,” was discussed, with Lewis in the affirmative the first two nights and Smith in the negative. The last two nights Smith took the affirmative with the proposition being changed by, “cannot,” to reflect the Baptist position. Attendance ranged from 300-400 for the sessions.

Harry Lewis, preacher for the Liberty Road church in Lexington has a daily call-in radio program. Gerald Smith, who preaches for the Northside Baptist Church in Lexington, apparently prompted by what he heard on the program, called in and challenged brother Lewis for the discussion. During the course of the debate, it became apparent that Smith had been a regular unidentified caller on Lewis’ program as questions and answers there given made up a prominent part of Smith’s argumentation. Much out of the ordinary for present day Baptists was the aggressive spirit of Mr. Smith and his associates in challenging for other debates. Propositions were signed during the discussion for a debate on “essentiality of baptism” and arrangements are in the making to debate “origin and name of the church.”

The first two nights of the debate were held at the Northside Baptist Church where brother Lewis affirmed. The latter two in a school auditorium provided by the Liberty Road congregation, where Smith affirmed. This produced an interesting development giving real insight into at least this group of Baptists’ attitude toward other churches, the Lord’s church in particular. Preliminaries to the debate included a song and prayer, intermission also included a song. The Baptists declined to participate in this and when someone questioned and chided the failure the moderator for Mr. Smith gave a revealing explanation. His words, as nearly as I remember, were, “We did not contract to worship with you people and refuse to do so. We will not sing with a group of infidels who have denied and refused the grace of God.”

While our purpose here is to simply report the debate we would pay compliment to the splendid job brother Lewis did in presenting truth and punctuating error. He was well prepared with telling affirmative arguments, beautifully presented by charts. His anticipation of Smith’s arguments was reflected in the charts prepared in advance which proved devastating. Mr. Smith found it necessary to stay in the negative even through a greater part of the last two nights when he was supposed to be affirming. Actually, he presented no affirmative argument until his last speech the final night. This within itself shows his difficulties. At one point during the discussion when clarification of statements was necessary, Mr. Smith was asked, “Do you believe the Christian can sin?” He answered, “Yes,” and in so doing he sacrificed his proposition. This really tells the story of the debate.

While this was the first debate for both men, even though each is an experienced preacher, it was fairly representative. Mr. Smith has been 17 years at the Northside Baptist Church. Harry Lewis, in his first year at Liberty Road, though many years a faithful preacher, conducted himself in an admirable way and his efforts are appreciated by all who were present. He is deserving of the commendation of brethren everywhere who love the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, p. 55
January 20, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

A gospel preacher named John S. Sweeney moved to Illinois in the fall of 1854. Shortly after his arrival, he debated a Methodist preacher called, “the Reverend Mr. Pattet.” The proposition for debate was simple. Mr. Pattet affirmed what was plainly written in the Methodist Discipline, viz., “Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort” (Article IX, “Of the Justification of Man”). Brother Sweeney, with the full force of divine truth, denied and devastated such a false doctrine. He ended the short-lived debating activity of the “Reverend Mr. Pallet,” and evidently, other Methodist preachers have learned the same lesson. The entire Methodist Episcopal denomination has stopped defending their doctrine of justification “by faith only.”

The doctrine of “justification by faith only” is the offspring of the famous German reformer, Martin Luther. The Protestant Reformation was “born” as a result of the “discovery” Luther made of this false doctrine. It has become an ingrained part of every denomination that holds to the so-called Evangelical theology. They all proclaim that man is saved, justified and pardoned by “faith only.” Luther was so controlled by this idea that he took the liberty of adding the word allein (German for “alone”) to the word “faith” in Romans 3:28. Even though he was taken to task repeatedly for this unwarranted addition, he steadfastly refused to relinquish it. He explained, “that he was not translating words but ideas and that the extra word was necessary in German in order to bring out the force of the original” (Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, Nashville, pp. 332-334). No German translator would agree with Luther. In fact, the Swiss translations do not have the word that Luther added. Only the Genfer Bibel adds “only” and it is the Swiss equivalent of the German Luther translation.

Adding the word “alone” to the text of Romans 3:28 completely changes the meaning of Paul. Whereas Paul affirmed, “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” the addition of “alone” limits justification to faith and excludes anything else. The Bible clearly shows that while “works of the law” are excluded, faith plus works are necessary for salvation or justification. There is a difference in saying, “a man is cured from disease by medicine, apart from `faith healers,”‘ and saying that “a man is cured from disease by medicine only, apart from `faith healers.”‘ In the first sentence, taking the medicine is not excluded, but in the second sentence taking the medicine is excluded. Just so Paul does not exclude works in general, but specifies “works of the law.”

A Clarification

There is no one who has read the Bible with any degree of profit who would deny that man is justified “by faith.” That fact is established clearly by divine revelation. Paul reaffirmed the proposition that man is justified “by faith” when he said, “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Both the books of Romans and Galatians set forth the principle that sinners are justified “by faith.” I seriously doubt that there is a man alive who believes in justification “by faith” any stronger than those of us who are members of churches of Christ.

But there is a vast difference in saying that man is “justified by faith” and then saying man is “justified by faith only.” The most outstanding difference is that one is taught in the Bible and the other is denied in the Bible. The Epistle of James has this statement: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (2:24, A.V.). Consider the following comparison.

James 2:24	Methodist Discipline
“by works a man is justified and not by faith only.”	” . . . that we are justified by faith only is a   wholesome doctrine . . .”

There is no way these two statements can be reconciled. They state exact opposites. What the Bible says is not so, the Methodist Discipline calls a “wholesome doctrine.”

The word that James used for “only” is from the Greek word monos and is defined as, “alone, solitary” (W.E. Vine). It is interesting to read the words of a master linguist from the past. He is John A. Bengel and wrote, “Only – Here Scripture has prophetically stigmatized these degenerate disciples of Luther, who ever call for faith only, not that of Paul, but faith isolated from works.” (New Testament Word Studies, Vol. II, p. 710). Edwin T. Winkler, D.D., author of the Commentary on the Epistle of James, published by Judson Press, and known far and wide has this interesting commentary: “Both Paul and James recognize faith as a principle without which acceptable works cannot be performed and salvation cannot be attained” (An American Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Alvah Hovey, D.D,). This sounds strange coming from Baptist scholars. Yet, it is a truth that needs to be learned. “Faith only” will not justify; faith plus works will justify.

James used the same word (monos) once more in his letter. In James 1:22 he wrote, “But be ye doers of the word and not hearers only (monos).” The principle here is the same as in James 2:24. The hearer only does nothing. Therefore, the do-nothing hearer, the hearer who will not obey the Truth, is the one who wilt not be blessed. In exactly the same way, the individual with faith only, does nothing, obeys nothing and performs no works; therefore he is not justified or saved. God does not bless those who only hear and who only believe James describes an individual who has faith plus nothing, showing that such faith will not save. It is right odd to hear others say just the opposite, even sometimes from those who should know better.

Let it be clearly understood now, that faith does justify and save, but faith only does neither. It is not a question of whether faith justifies or is essential to salvation or not. The issue is whether faith alone will save. If, in the act of believing, nothing more is required by God, then “faith only is a wholesome doctrine,” but if the Bible teaches that faith plus works equals salvation, it is very unwholesome.

Some Consequences

If the doctrine of “justification by faith only” is true, there are several consequences that must be faced. If all that God requires of sinners is that they believe, plus nothing, then there are some passages of Scripture that do not make much sense.

1. If one is saved by “faith only,” then James contradicts Paul. This is the position Martin Luther took in regard to James. He simply disregarded James and called it, “a right strawy epistle.” The truth is, of course, that James does not contradict Paul. Paul and James both teach that faith only will not save. Both teach that faith plus works equals salvation. Paul wrote the Galatians, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). How could anyone charge Paul with denying works and affirming “faith only”?

2. If one is saved by “faith only,” then one can be saved without obedience to the gospel of Christ. One must believe the gospel to be saved (Mark 16:16). If, however, that is all that God requires, obedience to gospel commands plays no roll at all. But consider this statement in reference to Christ. “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him, the author of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:8-9). But if one is saved by “faith only,” it matters very little whether one obeys Christ or not. Who is ready for such a consequence?

3. If one is saved by “faith only,” then one could be saved and never openly confess Christ. Notice, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue” (John 12:42). Here are some chief rulers of the Jews who believed “on Him.” Their faith cannot be questioned, but it did not overcome their fear of men. They would not confess Christ. Those who affirm that men are saved by “faith only” must accept the consequence that men can be saved with a silent faith, a faith that will not confess Christ openly. Who is ready for such?

4. If one is saved by “faith only,” then one can be saved before becoming a child of God. Consider the statement in John 1:11-12. “He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.” The facts of this passage show clearly that those who receive Christ received the “right” to become children of God. John specifies those who receive Christ as, “even to them that believe on His name.” Those who believe on His name are those who receive Christ and they are the ones who have the right to become children of God. One cannot become what one already is. Therefore, one who believes and does not exercise the right to become a child of God, can be saved according to the doctrine of “faith only.” They must face the consequence of having a person saved, but not being a child of God. Are they willing to do so?

5. If one is saved by “faith only,” and saved before becoming a child of God, one is saved before being born again. One cannot be a child of God without the new birth. Jesus told Nicodernus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). All of God’s children are born into His family, but since the believer has the “right” to become a child of God, the doctrine of “faith only” would allow an individual to be saved, but not born again. Will the advocates of “faith only” accept this?

6. If one is saved by “faith only,” then one is saved with a dead faith. James said, “faith apart from works is dead” (2:17). Faith that has no works cannot save, unless one accepts the consequence that a dead faith will save. Furthermore, James said that works make faith perfect (2:22). Perfect faith is complete faith. If one can be saved by an imperfect dead faith, then perhaps the doctrine of “faith only” is a wholesome doctrine, but if not, it is anything but wholesome and comfortable.

Faith And Works

The basis of this paper is that faith must have works, else there is no justification or salvation. Faith plus works equals salvation. There are some who object to the expression, “faith plus . . . .” They claim it is “faith plus nothing” that saves. But inspired men speak differently. To put it as clearly as possible, there is not way that the expression “faith only” can be used, understood or interpreted so as to make it a Bible doctrine. Those who think differently, please try it once. “Only” means solely or alone. It means “exclusively.” To affirm that salvation comes “by faith only” is to affirm that faith exclusively saves. That rules out God’s love, His grace, hope, the blood of Christ, obedience, etc. There is no way that the doctrine of “faith only” can be expressed in biblical terms because it is denied by biblical fact.

In the passage previously studied from Galatians 5:6, Paul shows that it is “faith working through love” that avails. Faith must exist before it can work and it must work through love before it can avail anything. Those who believe that “faith only” will save a sinner are forced to the conclusion that faith avails salvation before it works through love. Again, they flatly contradict the Bible.

Justifying Works

Not all works will justify or save the sinner. James does not affirm such. Paul identified the works he excluded as “works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). Works, in the New Testament, fall into three categories: (1) works revealed and required by the law of Moses, (2) works that human beings invent by their own wisdom, and (3) works that justify the sinner. One cannot deny that works of the Mosaic law have nothing to do with salvation, or that works human wisdom invents avail nothing. But still, James said that some kind of works justify the sinner.

Paul wrote, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall not flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16). Three times Paul specified “works of the law.” He did this to show the kind of works he had in mind which will not justify. Nothing in this passage of Scripture even hints that obedience to the commands of God are excluded. On the other hand, faith plus works may be included in the simple statement, might be justified by the faith of Christ.”

Again, Paul wrote Titus, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5). Here, Paul once more specifies the works he says will not justify. He calls them works of righteousness “which we have done.” I can think of no more appropriate example of such works “which we have done” than the denominational idea of how men are saved. In their “revivals” they call on sinners to answer the “altar call” or come to the “mourner’s bench.” Sometimes they get people so excited and frantic that the sinners jerk, twitch, quiver, shout, roll in the aisles, jump the pews and act as if anything but the Holy Spirit is working on them. Who invented such an idea? Does it come from God? If so, what passage indicates such a thing? The answer, dear reader is “none!” This kind of “salvation” belongs to man’s wisdom and is excluded from God’s plan.

But, still there are some kind of works that James tells us will justify. “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” What kind of works are they? Consider what the disciples asked Christ. They wanted to know, “What shall we do that we might work the works of God?” (John 6:28). Here is another category, viz., “the works of God” and these are to be done by men. Jesus answered, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29). Jesus said that believing on Him is a work of God. Why? Simply because it is the command of God. In John’s first letter, he wrote, “And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ. . .” (1 John 3:23). God has commanded us to believe; therefore, believing is a work of God. It is not a work God must do, or will do for us, it is a work we must accomplish. The same is true with all of the things God commands us to observe.

Consider once more the passage from Titus 3:5. Here Paul said that we are not saved “by works of righteousness which we have done,” but that we are saved by God’s mercy, “by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” God’s mercy is the incentive of our salvation. The washing of regeneration is the means of our obedience to His commands. The washing of this regeneration is the baptism that results in our being raised to a new life in Christ (Rom. 6:3-4). It is the “birth of water and of the Spirit,” that brings us into the family of God. Baptism in water, for the remission of sins, is not a work of righteousness which we have done. It is the work of God exactly like belief in Christ is a work of God. Baptism rests on the same authority that commands belief. Since Paul says we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done, but that we are saved by the washing of regeneration, it is easy to see that baptism is not a work of human merit.

Faith plus baptism, the works that justify the sinner, equals salvation. In the words of Christ, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Dear reader, consider carefully how you stand with God. Do not be misled and deceived by the false idea that faith only will save. It will not save anyone, saint or sinner. It never will be acceptable to God. It is the cunning devise of Satan and has been proclaimed by his henchmen. Renounce it now and if you have not yet shown your faith by complying with the commands of God, do so before it is everlastingly too late.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 52-55
January 20, 1983