Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

It shouldn’t. He’s God! If I raised the dead it would be incredible, but it isn’t when God does it. Surely the one who gave life in the first place would have no trouble restoring it when it is lost.

Christianity loses its authority, its unique position among the religions of the world, its credibility and its hope for the world if Jesus was not raised from the dead. It was on this very foundation that the apostles based their case (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:14-16; 5:30, 31). This is the miracle of the Bible. If it cannot be sustained there is no use talking about the others and we may as well throw our Bibles away and close the doors of our church buildings. For “we are of all men most miserable,” if Christ be not raised (1 Cor. 15:16-20).

The startling fact with which those disciples were con- fronted that Sunday morning is the same one, which after 2000 years, presents itself to you and me — an empty tomb. What shall I do with Jesus (Matt. 27:22)? By getting to the heart of the matter of salvation, we hope your heart will be pricked upon the contention of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Many say Jesus was a good man, one of the world’s greatest teachers, but not the son of God. They can’t have it both ways and they need to make up their minds. If he was a good man, could he lie about being the son of God and remain a good man? If he was not the son of God, then he was the greatest impostor and liar the world has ever known. The terms “good man” and “great Teacher” could not describe one who has played a hoax on the whole world for 2000 years. To accept this we would have to believe that single-handedly Jesus perpetrated a universal, mass deception upon all mankind. We are asked to believe that a carpenter’s son was so persuasive that he convinced his own mother to take part in the lie to the point that she would watch her oldest boy be tortured, suffer, and die as a criminal for something they both knew was false. She was the only one who could save him. She was the only one who could have known for sure whether he was miraculously conceived during her virginity. Some had already said Jesus was “beside himself” (Mark 3:21). Mary could have told the authorities her son was touched in the head, has visions of grandeur, and thinks he is the son of God. Let me take him by the hand and I will lead him home and get him out of your hair.

Could Jesus have persuaded twelve men, all from different educational backgrounds and social casts to quit their jobs immediately and to go out with great zeal and preach and convert men to a doctrine they never really believed? Plus, he had the Old Testament prophecies behind every- thing from his birth to his death. And what of his miracles which were not done in a corner (Acts 26:26)? Even his enemies admitted the miracles (Acts 4:16). If he had failed in just one of them, they would have plastered it in the headlines of the Jerusalem Morning News.

How Some Explain The Empty Tomb

How do we account for the disappearance of the body of Jesus other than by a resurrection? Several theories have been advanced but the only serious attempt is the argument that the body was stolen. But by whom? His enemies or his friends? There have been modernists on both sides. But first let us consider the argument they did not make.

The change in attitude and action of that little band of disciples is one of the most convincing evidential facts surrounding the resurrection. Those who feared and fled are now rejoicing that they can suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41).

“The Tomb Is Not Empty.” They could have stopped Christianity it its tracks by refuting the empty tomb and proving the body was still there. The fact that no denial of the empty tomb was ever offered is mute but convincing evidence that John told the truth. Even the authorities said the body was missing (Matt. 28:11-15). John was not wrong about the empty tomb (John 20:1-8).

Stolen By The Disciples. The Jews came up with the best explanation to be found. They couldn’t have done better if they had had 2000 years to think up the best explanation. I have never been worried that anybody 2000 years after the event would be able to come with a better one, short of a resurrection, than those who were bodily present. They had the most to lose and the greatest motivation to come up with the best explanation possible. Theirs is superior to all other explanations that have been offered since. It was not a time for denial but for explaining. They had an empty tomb to account for. But even this explanation will not stand. Imagine having one of those soldiers who had guarded the tomb on the witness stand to be “cross” examined.

Lawyer: “What happened?” Guard: “They stole the body.” Lawyer: “Who stole it?” Guard: “His friends, the disciples.” Lawyer: “When did they steal it?” Guard: “During the night.” Lawyer: “And what were you doing when this happened?” Guard: “I was asleep” (Matt. 28:11-15). An eyewitness with his eyes closed? Going to sleep on duty was one of the worst crimes a soldier could commit. To think the governor would have approved this excuse is absurd. Soldiers cold-blooded enough to gamble over a dying victim’s cloak are not the kind to be hoodwinked by cowardly Galileans who had recently fled for their lives or to jeopardize their own lives by going to sleep on duty. And to ask us to believe all of them went to sleep at the same time is ridiculous.

Even if all of them went to sleep at the same time, it is unbelievable that the disciples could have accomplished this feat so casually. How would they roll away an “exceeding great” stone so big that the three women knew they could not move it (Mark 16:1-4)? Remember also that the tomb was hewn out in a rock” (Matt. 27:60). That means there was no back door and no trap door. The entrance and exit were one and the same. And why would they take off the linen cloths and napkin? This would require additional time and would make the body more difficult to remove. Instead of being a mess, such orderliness of the tomb is not consistent with grave robbers and body snatchers. It is not in keeping with burglars, to be so neat and tidy. Did you ever hear of anyone breaking into someone’s home and cleaning it up?

Furthermore, the disciples were not looking for a resurrection. Their state of despair showed they thought their hopes had ended. Mary went with spices with which to anoint a dead body. The theory that the disciples stole the body falls flat under a fair examination.

Stolen By His Enemies. When one is trying to solve a crime one of the first things to be done is to establish a motive. There could have been no motive unless it was to show they still had it in their possession when the disciples began claiming a resurrection. Since they did not refute the resurrection by showing they still possessed the body, then there is no motive. The enemies stealing it would be inconsistent with what we already know. Pilate secured the sealing of the tomb and stationed soldiers there to keep the disciples from stealing it (Matt. 27:62-67). Would these same enemies defeat themselves by stealing the body, thus making it look like a resurrection had occurred? They would have had everything to lose. They wanted to keep the body in the tomb. If they did steal it, why wasn’t it produced to defeat the disciples’ claims of a resurrection? Had it been possible, they would have. The fact that they did not have it in their possession is evidenced in that “a great company of the priests believed” (Acts 6:7). Likewise, this theory falls.

The “Swoon” Theory. This theory says there was no resurrection because Jesus never died. He merely fainted. Given time to rest, along with the cool tomb and spices, he revived. Remember, the soldiers made a first hand examination and “thrust a spear into his side” (John 19:34). They should have known better than anyone living today whether Jesus was dead. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus prepared him for burial. They made a “hands on” examination and saw no signs of life. They, too, would have known better than anyone living today. Remember, Jesus was persecuted prior to the crucifixion. He was beaten. A crown of thorns stuck in his brow. He had to carry his own cross. He was then nailed to it and hung on it for six hours. There would have been a considerable loss of blood. Then his side was pierced with a spear. Having the linen garments “bound,” “wound,” and “wrapped” (note those words) around him along with 100 pounds of spices (John 19:39) would have made it virtually impossible to escape. When Lazarus was raised he had been bound hand and foot with grave clothes and his face was bound with a napkin. Jesus commanded, “Loose him and let him go.” Lazarus was unable to free himself. Being bound in these grave clothes plus the sealing of the tomb could certainly have produced an air supply problem. Soldiers are outside guarding the tomb. The “exceeding great” stone covers the entrance. In spites of all this, Jesus escapes! Such a theory insults a child’s intelligence.

Wrong Tomb. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary “sat over against the sepulcher” after the burial (Matt. 27:61). The women “beheld” the tomb (Luke 23:55). Thus, it never occurred to them to say “Oops, wrong tomb” — because of the grave clothes. If it was an unused tomb, why would there be grave clothes rolled up? If it was a used tomb there would be evidence of another burial. All the authorities would need to do was show these confused women that the body was still in their possession. They knew this wasn’t the best explanation and could be easily disproved — a very weak theory.

Hallucination Theory. This asks us to believe that hundreds (if not thousands, 1 Cor. 15:6) of disciples hallucinated at different times and places over a period of 40 days! It still fails to explain the empty tomb. The enemies could have produced the body to show that the disciples’ minds were playing tricks on them. It is hard to see how anyone could make this argument and keep a straight face.

The Cause Theory. I knew a minister in the Disciples of Christ who took this position. It looks at the resurrection figuratively. It was the “cause” of Christianity that was revived. It still fails to explain all the events that occurred. The only motive for one taking this position is that he has a bias which says everything must be explained on a natural (not supernatural) basis. The apostles and many former enemies of Christianity — those who were there — never interpreted it figuratively (1 Cor. 15:1-6). Why would so many be converted to Christianity and accept the consequences that went with it if there was not a literal resurrection?

Other Theories. The vision hypothesis, the optical illusion, etc., are all answered by the empty tomb. One must explain what became of the body, how it happened in the face of the pains taken by both the Jews and Romans to prevent the appearance of a resurrection, along with the fear, cowardice, and despair of the disciples.

The Change in the Disciples

Is it reasonable to believe that men thrust into the very darkness of despair and cowardice could have, within a few weeks, risen to such heights of joy and courage as the disciples subsequently displayed? Their emotions were stretched from one extreme to the other. Peter had denied, cursed, and sworn that he didn’t know Jesus. Yet in just a few days he stands before thousands of those whom he had feared and accuses them of murder and boldly affirms the intention of Christians (Acts 4:19-21; 5:29).

The change in attitude and action of that little band of disciples is one of the most convincing evidential facts surrounding the resurrection. Those who feared and fled are now rejoicing that they can suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41). You can put a man’s head on the chopping block and he might be brave enough to die for something he really believes. But no man is brave enough to die for something he knows is a lie, especially when he stands to benefit in every way by denying it. These disciples were beaten, stoned and left for dead, run out of town, and were outcasts from formerly held respected positions. There was no gain in this life. One cannot find an ulterior motive on their part.

Is it mathematically possible that Jesus could have orchestrated this whole event and made things turn out so that they fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah and yet be an impostor? How did he get the Romans, the Jews, his disciples (including Judas), his family, and his own mother to act together exactly as they did? How did he fake the miracles (healing the sick, restoring limbs, raising the dead, calming the storm, cleansing the lepers, feeding thousands, turning water to wine, etc.)? With the Roman soldier we must proclaim, “Truly, this was the son of God” (Matt. 27:54).

Conclusion

Through the centuries the empty tomb has been the Gibraltar of the Christian’s faith and the Waterloo of skeptics. That’s why I have never worried that anyone 2000 years removed from the events would be able to come up with a better explanation. So why have many tried to explain it away? Because of wishful thinking. Once one accepts the resurrection it obligates him to live and behave in a certain way or reap consequences. It is much easier to deny it ever  happened and to live a life of indulgence which so vividly characterizes our society today.

It is not incredible at all that God can raise the dead (Acts 26:8). So, what will you do with Jesus? Will you make the change which occurs at baptism and begin your “newness  of life”? Remember, preaching the cross includes preaching the genuineness of baptism. Baptism is the bridge that ties us to the cross (Acts 2:23-41; Rom. 6:1-18; Col. 2:11-13; 1 Pet. 3:21).

By Randy Blackaby

Many have undertaken to write in recent years of the desperate social conditions and the moral vacuum being created by the growth of fatherless homes. Our response has been to decry out-of-wedlock births, divorce, and do- nothing fatherhood.

That is as it should be.

But one issue is often overlooked. What is the answer for those children, who through no fault of their own, must grow up without a father? What answers do we give Chris- tian mothers widowed or abandoned by their mates?

We’ve done a good job chronicling the handicaps fa- therless children face. Problems often include poverty, increased health problems, lower educational achievement, child abuse, greater involvement in crime, proclivities to- ward violence and a likelihood they will become involved in adolescent child bearing.

But do the sins of failed fathers or the crises brought on by untimely death demand a sentence of doom for their children?

Ezekiel 18 addresses the general question of sinful fathers and their children and says “the soul who sins shall die.” The prophet adds, “If, however, he (a sinful father — RB) begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and considers but does not do likewise . . . he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live!”

Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Indeed, we all recognize the possibility and the hope of these fatherless children learning what a good father would have taught them.

A mother working doubly hard to inculcate the word of God, children observing the lives of intact, godly families, faith in God’s ways without benefit of an earthly father’s supporting guidance and experience — all are avenues of aid.

But there may be more that concerned Christians can and should do to promote, feed and build the faith and behavior of fatherless children.

The Bible is filled with commands for God’s people to give attention to the needs of the orphan or fatherless. We are instructed in James 1:27 that “pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans (the fatherless — KJV) and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

What does this entail? Going by and saying hello every couple of months? Taking care of their physical needs, if need be?

Yes, but more. The word “visit” is translated from the Greek word episkeptomai and means to look upon, care for, exercise oversight, visit with help.

We meet many fatherless children whose need is not food or clothing but spiritual guidance. They need to be pointed toward their heavenly Father.

The Lord’s church today finds a growing number of fatherless children in its midst. Whether they are so because of death or divorce or the sins of one or both parents, they still should be visited (helped) in their need.

There is no circumstance of life and no environment conducive to sin for which God does not provide a “way of escape” (1 Cor. 10:13).

So, while we must continue to preach boldly and loudly the critical role of fatherhood in the development of righteous families and make clear there is no human substitute for his position in the home, we also must be careful not to paint a picture of complete hopelessness for the fatherless child. Such would be completely contrary to the faith we hold.

Such must be discouraging to mothers and children looking for help and hope.

That the churches described in the New Testament had a treasury made up of freewill offerings from the members is evident from several passages. Paul gave the same order to the churches of Galatia that he gave to the church at Corinth. “As I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also. On the first day of the week let each of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

This is the only passage which deals with a time when such a collection was to be made “on the first day of the week.” This regular practice would prevent having to suddenly gather what was needed when Paul arrived. What was “stored up” or “laid by” in store (KJV) constituted a treasury. From this fund the needs of saints at Jerusalem would be supplied. But while this passage is the only one which states a time for such storing up, it is not the only passage which instructs us as to how collected funds were used. Paul said he “took wages” of “other churches” to minister at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8). Churches could not provide wages to Paul unless they had funds from which to do that. The church at Philippi “sent once and again” to supply Paul’s needs while he preached at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15-16). Members of the church at Jerusalem sold property and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles for the care of those among them who were in need (Acts 4:32-37).

Does God Need Our Money?

The truth of the matter is that God does not need money. He owns the universe. But whatever God has required his people to do is for their own good. Jesus said “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Giving, properly done, indicates a generous spirit which parallels the character of God. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (John 3:16). Paul called giving a “grace bestowed” by God on those who practiced it. “Moreover brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1, 6). Unselfish giving shows the depth of our affection. It springs not from compulsion but from the free will of the heart. In the case of relieving the afflicted it shows compassion. Liberality is the opposite of stinginess. God was not miserly in showering his blessings upon the human family, nor should we be in our giving. No, God does not need our money, but we need to give for our own good. In so doing we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

Giving Self First

Jesus said that in order to be his disciples we have to learn to “deny self” (Matt. 16:24). “Self-esteem” is the current rage. “I’m worth it” or “I’m number one” is heard again and again. Jesus emptied himself for us (Phil. 2:7). “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Jesus taught that the way to greatness in the kingdom was to become the servant of all. When a person surrenders all to the Lord, body, soul, spirit, talent, time, and wealth, then he fulfills what is meant by denying self. God accepts what we give only to the extent that he accepts us.

The Macedonians had learned this. “That in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded to the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing. Imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And this they did, not as we had hoped, but first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:1-5). Here were poor brethren who had so given themselves to the Lord that their giving was described as liberality and far beyond what anyone would have expected.

Notice that it was the grace of God when they gave. But it was also the grace of God when the Corinthians gave (vv. 6-7).

How much do I have to give? That is the wrong question. Remember it is called liberality. It is grace. Was God’s grace generous or stingy? It is called “freely” giving. If we “sow sparingly we shall also reap sparingly” while sowing “bountifully” results in reaping bountifully (2 Cor. 9:6). Giving must be according to purpose of heart and not grudgingly or of necessity (2 Cor. 9:7). It is the “cheerful giver that God loves. Do I have to give this? No, you don’t have to do it. You can refuse to give yourself to the Lord, shut up your heart against the needs of the saints and the lost who need to hear the gospel, spend all you have on yourself, and go on to Hell with the rest of the wicked. I have heard some say we ought to give until it hurts. I don’t believe it. Where is the grace, liberality, and freewill in that? No, what we need to do is give until it feels good.

All are not prospered equally. The Macedonians were poor. But they taught a great lesson and set a grand ex- ample, not only for the Corinthians, for all of us. If that won’t help us to decide how much to give, then the case is beyond help.

The subject of Christian fellowship has been an important issue for the twentieth century. The ecumenical movement of Protestant denominationalism changed those churches; instead of being denominations at war with one another, they accepted one another as Christians with different denominational heritages. The influence of this movement spilled over into the restoration heritage. The Murch-Witty discussion of the 1930s was a “unity-in-diversity” movement.

The conversion of Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett from sectarians who would not fellowship anyone except those baptized believers who opposed located preachers and colleges in which the Bible is taught was the beginning of a “unity-in-diversity” movement among the churches of Christ. That movement spilled over to influence the non-institutional churches in the early 1970s, taking about 100 younger preachers with it.

The “unity-in-diversity” movement is storming the camp of the institutional churches. F. Lagard Smith describes the move toward fellowshipping those in denominational churches as a “quiet revolution” that is a “clear and present danger” (Who Is My Brother? 16, 17). That movement asserts that there are Christians in all denominations with whom we should have “unity-in-diversity.”

In the 1997 Promise Keepers rally in Washington, D.C., Max Lucada called on Christians to quit building walls between denominations, but to let those walls come down. Mike Cope delivered a series of lessons at the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, TX entitled “Christians Only — Not the Only Christians.” One of his lessons that has been frequently quoted is reprinted in Wineskins (III:3, April/May 1997). In this lesson, he explained how he came to the realization that there were Christians in all denominations. He argued from Romans 14-15 that we should have unity with one another in spite of our important doctrinal and moral differences. He closed by expressing his desire for the time when he could exchange pulpits with a local Baptist preacher. A significant number of the liberal churches of Christ are moving into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism, recognizing as Christians those who profess faith in Christ without regard to whether or not one has been baptized.

What beliefs must be changed to have fellowship with the denominations? Let me suggest several changes that have to occur before one is ready to extend fellowship to those in denominations:

1. One must believe that one can be saved without water baptism. One cannot speak of “Christian fellowship” with those in the denominations unless he believes that they are Christians. The New Testament teaches that one becomes a Christian when he obeys the gospel. The obedience of faith includes repentance of one’s sins and immersion in water for the remission of one’s sins. Most groups will admit that one must repent of his sins in order to be saved (Luke 13:3; Acts

2:38; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9), but most Protestant denominations reject the idea that water baptism is essential to salvation. The Scriptures describe the purpose of water baptism in the following words:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16).

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ  (1 Pet. 3:21).

When one is baptized, his spiritual state changes. He ceases being an alien from the commonwealth of Israel and becomes a fellow-citizen with the saints in the kingdom of God; he ceases being outside of Christ and without hope to being in Christ with the one blessed hope; he changes from a sinner to a saint, an unbeliever to a believer, one who rejects Christ to a disciple of Christ.

In as much as the denominations teach that one can be saved without being baptized, they have not taught men how to become Christians. The denominational plan of salvation through faith only is contrary to divine revela- tion (Jas. 2:24). Those who call for Christian fellowship with those who teach salvation by “faith only” must give up their belief that one must be baptized in water in order to have the forgiveness of his sin, to enter the kingdom of God, and to be in Christ.

2. One must believe that one’s salvation is not effected by the worship that he offers. The Lord has always revealed how he wishes to be worshiped. If there were no Bible pat- tern for worship, the sin of idolatry could not exist (Gal. 5:20). The fact is that God has revealed in both the Old and New Testaments that only that worship which is offered according to the revealed pattern is pleasing to him.

God rejected the worship of Cain because it was not offered “by faith” (Gen. 4; Heb. 11:4). He rejected the worship of Nadab and Abihu because they brought “strange fire” which God had not commanded (Lev. 10:1-2). The worship of Saul was rejected because it was not offered by God’s designated priests (1 Sam. 15). The worship that Jeroboam I set up in Bethel and Dan was a sin (1 Kings 12:25-32). Jesus taught that true worship must be offered to the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24).

The divine pattern for worship includes these five items: (a) the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-34); (b) Prayer (1 Cor. 14:15; Acts 2:42); (c) Congregation singing (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16); (d) A contribution taken on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2); (e) The preaching of apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42; 20:7).

The denominations have departed from the worship revealed in the New Testament in a variety of ways. Rather than having congregational singing, they use choirs and other professional (or semi-professional) singing groups that entertain the assembly (accompanied by clapping to show their approval of the entertainment). The singing is accompanied by mechanical instruments of music and instrumental solos. The Lord’s supper is not observed on the first day of every week, but once a month, once every six months, or once a year, sometimes in conjunction with a special foot washing service. Prayer may be offered in the name of Mary (as in Roman Catholicism). Contributions are taken at every service without regard to which day of the week it is and usually several contributions per service. The preaching that is done is usually woefully thin in Scripture, consisting more of heart-warming stories and anecdotes. In addition to the changes in revealed worship, most churches will also allow theatrical performances, speeches by prominent political figures on political issues (such as Jesse Jackson speaking in Black Baptist Churches), and many such like things.

However, if one is going to extend fellowship to the denominations, he must accept that these departures from revealed worship do not endanger the souls of men or break fellowship with the saints.

3. Teaching the doctrines of men does not affect one’s salvation. The early apostles were absolutely charged with preaching the gospel of Christ, without addition or omission. The early apostles were to teach what “I (Jesus) have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). They were to teach “apostolic doctrine” (Acts 2:42). They were charged not to teach any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3). Timothy was charged to give attention to his doctrine in order to save himself and those that hear him (1 Tim. 4:16). Peter commanded that one speak as the oracles of Christ (1 Pet. 4:11). John told men not to transgress the doctrine of Christ and warned those who did that they did not have fellowship with God (2 John 9-11). Jesus warned of the danger of teaching for one’s doctrine the commandments of men saying,

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. . . . But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:8-9, 13-14).

Many such like Scriptures can be offered in support of the same truth. Those who depart from revealed revelation are guilty of sin and in danger of eternal damnation.

To have an on-going fellowship with the denominations of men, one must reject this concept. He must be willing to accept that water baptism is not essential for salvation, can be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and can be administered to unbelieving infants. He must tolerate the doctrine that says God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation without regard to anything foreseen in what man does. He must tolerate the Catholic doctrine about the Virgin Mary. He must not draw lines of fellowship over the doctrine of babies inheriting the guilt and sinful nature of Adam. He must tolerate those who deny the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus, for Protestant churches contain those holding these various positions.

Conclusion

To fellowship those in Protestant and Catholic denominations, one must give up his belief in what the Bible teaches. He must give his belief that water baptism is essential for salvation, that there is a pattern of New Testament worship, and that it makes a difference what one believes and practices. One cannot maintain purity of faith and extend the hands of fellowship to those who deny the faith once for all delivered to the saints.