Truth Magazine

By Bob Wilkin

The Grace Evangelical Society News X:3 (Used By Permission)

From 1974 to 1978 I was involved in evangelistic out-reach ministry at two universities: Arkansas State University (1974-76) and North Carolina State University (1976-78). I often ran into students who believed that in order to go to heaven you had to be baptized. One of the passages they cited was Mark 16:15-16.

“And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

In this article I will explain why this verse can’t be teaching salvation by baptism and then show what it does mean.

Mark 16:16 Isn’t Teaching That You

Must Be Water Baptized To Go To Heaven

There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn’t teaching that water baptism is a condition of eternal salvation:

 The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.

 The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven.

 The Gospel never changes.

 There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.

 Let us briefly consider each of those points in more detail.

Condemnation Is For Unbelief Only

Jesus didn’t say, “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” Neither did he say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” Rather, he said, “He who does not believe will be condemned.” By this our Lord made it clear that faith alone was necessary to avoid eternal condemnation. He said the same thing in John 3:18: “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (see also John 5:24; 6:47).

The Apostles Preached Salvation By Faith Alone Two of the disciples in the inner circle were Peter and John. Both of them heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16. Yet both of them taught that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and him alone.

Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10:34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48).

The apostle John wrote an evangelistic book that we call the Gospel of John. He repeatedly indicated that faith is the only condition of eternal salvation. Yet not once in all of John’s Gospel, written after the event recorded in Mark 16:16 occurred, did John condition eternal salvation upon water baptism. (In fact, Christian water baptism is not even mentioned in John’s Gospel.)

The Gospel Never Changes

“What about the thief on the cross?” I would say. “Jesus said he would be with him that day in Paradise, yet he was never baptized.” The response I would get was inevitably this: That was before Pentecost. After Pentecost, you have to be baptized in order to be saved.

What these students were telling me was that the Gospel had changed. Before Jesus’ resurrection and the coming of the Spirit a person was saved without water baptism. After that water baptism is required.

That is an impossible position to defend since the apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age (cf. Rom. 4:1-8; Gal. 3:6-14). We find this in the first book in the Bible (Gen. 3:15; 15:6) and in the last book of the Bible (Rev. 22:17).

The NT Gives Examples of Salvation Before Baptism

In addition to the thief on the cross, there are other NT examples of people who were saved without being baptized. Martha (John 11:25-27) is one. Another is Cornelius and his household. According to Acts 10:43-48, they were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins. At that very moment, before they were baptized with water, they were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

These four points prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that you must be baptized to go to heaven. However, the question still remains as to what Mark 16:16 does mean.

Mark 16:16 Is Teaching That All Who Respond

To The Great Commission Will GoTo Heaven

The key to understanding these verses is to recognize that they are a summary statement of the Great Commission. Mark is not reporting everything that Jesus said about the Great Commission. He is recording one summary statement that Jesus made of it.

The Great Commission was communicated by the Lord on five different occasions (once each in the Gospels and Acts). There is a lot of variety in the way the Great Commission is expressed in these instances. In some of those statements only evangelism is mentioned (e.g., Luke 24:47, though it could possibly be dealing with both evangelism and discipleship, and Acts 1:8). In some only discipleship is mentioned (Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15-17). The Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16 includes both evangelism and discipleship. Preaching the gospel to every creature (v. 15) is evangelism. Baptizing those who believe (v. 16) is the first step in discipleship.

What Jesus is saying in Mark 16:15-16 is this:

 

• Preach the gospel to everyone on earth (v. 15).
• Tell people to believe in him and to be baptized (implied in v. 16).
• Those who believe and are baptized will be saved.
• Those who don’t believe will be condemned.

It is, of course, true that all who believe and are baptized will be eternally saved. That is not to say, however, that those who either refuse to be baptized or who fail to be baptized through ignorance, or lack of opportunity (for example, some people have died immediately after trusting in Christ) will not be saved. They will. At the very moment they believe, they are saved from the penalty of sin, eternal condemnation.

We must be careful not to read into Scripture. Jesus does not say or even imply that the one who isn’t baptized won’t be saved. We know that is not true from other Scripture, and even from the second half of v. 16.*

Conclusion

Mark 16:16 does not contradict salvation by faith alone. Rather, it affirms it. Jesus clearly and unmistakably indicates that the sole basis of eternal condemnation is unbelief. The sole basis for eternal salvation is believing the Lord Jesus, and him alone, for it.

*Another understanding of Mark 16:16 is that it refers to Holy Spirit baptism (see, for example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 6, p. 150). Except for some exceptional cases in the Book of Acts, Holy Spirit baptism has always occurred at the point of faith. Compare 1 Cor. 12:13. While that view is possible, I don’t believe it fits the context as well as the one I have articulated here.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 18, p. 16
September 21, 1995

By H. Osby Weaver

In the Houston Chronicle of July 8, 1995, an article headed “Group Re-views Gay Gene Study,” contained some interesting information relating to the homosexual’s claim that he really is not responsible for his so called “alternate life ,” he was just born that way. Now the truth comes out.

The article reported that “the author of a controversial study linking homosexuality to a `gay gene’ is under investigation for scientific misconduct.” You see the author claimed he had found a gene on the tip of the X chromosome which is passed from mother to child and concluded that the “gene helped to determine the men’s sexual orientation.” As it turned out, when his conclusion was checked out, “it failed at least in one independent effort at confirmation,” so the article continues.

The institute researcher named in the article “caused a stir because, for the first time, it connected sexual orientation to at least one biological root. Some gay activists seized on the information (or misinformation  H.O.W.) as a weapon against discrimination,” so said the article. Of course, the homosexual wanted some excuse to say, “Don’t blame me for my sexual choice, I was born that way!”

However, a “former collaborator” blew the whistle on this author and charged him with “leaving out information that could have weakened the statistical significance of his findings.” Now, how is that for true science? “Apparently, a post-doctoral fellow in the lab (used by the author under consideration  H.O.W.), went back to look at some results and found cases that had not been included in his final report. Other researchers believe those cases could have changed the nature of the findings.”

So, the truth comes out! Efforts to bolster the honorable quality of the homosexual falls flat on its face, as any right thinking person would know if he is familiar with the word of God on such matters. God would not impose the death penalty on someone because he was born with some-thing that would lead him to choose a certain life style that he could not otherwise avoid.

Let us see what God has said about the practice of homosexuality which has not changed through the centuries, even if the homosexuals are constantly seeking to bring their practice from under the rock and out of the closet and are attempting to make it honorable and decent. You can see why they jumped on the band wagon that suggests that they are doing what they are doing because they cannot help doing it, even though the word of God condemns it.

This is not a new sin. Away back in Old Testament times, God said, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind: it is an abomination . . . And if a man lie with mankind, as with woman kind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall be put to death” (Lev.18:23; 20:1).

But the prohibition against this sin was not confined to the Old Testament period. In the New Testament, God says to us today that he gave some up “in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves . . . for this cause God gave them up to vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due” (Rom. 1:24-27). While AIDS is not the sum total of the recompense of their error, that fatal disease could very well be a part of it in this life.

According to the Amplified Version, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled); neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.” In view of these passages, can you imagine even some preachers trying to justify the ungodly sin of homosexuality?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 3-4
October 5, 1995

By Clinton Douglas III

In a word, I don’t know why some of my preaching colleagues move from one local work to another before settling down. I’ve been told that some do it for personal reasons, and it comes across that I’m not to inquire what those personal reasons are. So I don’t know. I personally believe that some move for the following reasons:

1. Misunderstandings. In other words, either the preacher get his information mixed up regarding what the local brethren want or expect of him, or the brethren are confused over what they’re to do for or with the new preacher. In any case, often the facts are misconstrued and instead of both preacher and church acknowledging their error, and starting afresh, the preacher ends up leaving.

2. Money. Though it shouldn’t be the driving force behind a preacher’s move, money is another key factor in causing some to pack their bags. In some cases a part-time job for a while could be just the thing to help the preacher and the church in a crisis, but instead of taking a part-time job some preachers look for greener pastures. There are some situations when the preacher is fully supported with a good income, but for a few more dollars he moves on. Despite the fact, he’s a major influence on the church he’s presently working with (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10, 11).

3. Ego. I think the ego comes into play sometimes, provoking some of my fellow preachers to move to new locations. It’s extremely difficult for some of us to refuse the invitation(s) by various brethren to leave our present work in order to work with them. Especially is this true if there’s the slightest bit of trouble in the congregation one is presently with. We reason and justify our moving by telling ourselves, we’re needed and wanted in the new location. And maybe that’s so, but we are just as needed where we presently are. What about that new convert you just converted? Don’t you think he or she needs you? What about those who invited you to come where you are? Don’t they need you? And what about all the lost souls in the community where you are? Don’t they need you? Brethren this is no time for egoism, but rather a time for true dedication and hard work right where you are!

4. Family. I know several preachers who have moved in order to be close to their family or their wife’s family. While I understand first hand some of the benefits associated with such a move, I understand too, that God’s work must come first! Hence such a move should be thought through very carefully. If you’ve just moved to a congregation and things are going well (i.e., saints are growing; souls are converted; classes are established; etc.), leaving may not be the best thing to do. Leaving may not be the best thing to do even if it puts you closer to family. The grass is not always greener on the other side! l have a feeling such considerations have not received proper pondering with the move of some of my brethren (cf. Matt. 10:37-38).

5. Loss of Effectiveness. Some of my preaching brethren have moved due to a loss of effectiveness with the local congregation. If that be the case, it might be one of the better reasons for moving. But even that should be investigated. In other words, why has the preacher impressed people so? Have the members been listening as they should? Is there a concrete effort to work with and help the preacher? Firing the preacher is not always the answer in these situations (cf. Matt. 7: 1-5; Gal. 6:2).

6. Weather. Yes, along with some of the many other reasons for moving so often, I believe the warm weather has its impact on certain preachers, just as it affects many good elders and causes them to leave good works, and sometimes break up the eldership for the quest of warm weather. God speed the day when we will wake up and see the need of the hour! Our time is short. Souls are lost. The cults and denominations are on the move. And all some of us can think about is to move to the sunshine state? Brethren, where are our priorities (see Matt. 6:33; Jer. 8:20)?

Reason to Stay In One Place

Whatever the reason(s) for what I call unnecessary moving, I wish it would cease, and yesterday wouldn’t be too early for it to do so. This up and moving every one, two or three years is ridiculous! Please consider my main reasons for encouraging longevity in a local work:. All this moving.. .

1. Costs a Lot of Money. Even if the preacher rents a truck and packs his own things, that could get up in the thousands. We are all aware of the many good men who could use such funds for support.

2. Causes Church Problems. When a preacher leaves one congregation for another, certain adjustments have to be made. Often times members leave when the preacher leaves .1 know that should not be but it happens. And other things happen as well which could be eliminated if preachers would resolve to stay longer.

3. Causes Family Problems. You’d have to be sleeping to overlook the effect moving has on our children. It is extremely difficult for children to adjust when a move has occurred. The older the child the more difficult it is. Preachers please be aware of this fact!

4. Causes Preacher Problems. No matter how fine a preacher one is or how well he performs in the pulpit, his often moving does not help his reputation or track record. Quite simply, one does far more good and is of far greater value if he’s able to get settled and work with one church for a season. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, these are just observations based on what I’ve experienced personally, what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard and read. I’ve been with the Eddy St. congregation for ten years, and though we’ve had some problems, we’ve been able with God’s help to solve them, and we’ve all grown in the process.

5. Wastes a Lot of Time. If a preacher moves to a local work and only stays there a year or two, he has not had enough time to really know the church. He has not given it enough time to work the community. In fact, he has done little or nothing for the over-all benefit of the church. Can you imagine a church having to go through such every two years? God does not want us to waste precious time, brethren! There is too much work to do (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Jn. 9:4; Rom. 13:11).

Conclusion

Brethren, we’re not the Methodist church. It’s not mandatory that we move every few years. Now I under-stand that the time may come when one has to move. And if you just have to move then by all means move. But I’m not convinced that we have to move so often. And I know it doesn’t help many of the churches involved. I urge brethren to commit themselves to one local congregation. Give it some time. Get to know the local brethren well and really work the community. There’s enough work in most communities to last a life time and then some!

I covet that good preachers quit moving so much  but to get with a local congregation and help make it better and stronger in the Lord. Pursue peace, love, godliness and eternal life in a crooked and perverse generation. Let it be so!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 10 p. 13-14
May 18, 1995

By Jim McDonald

The Philippine Islands are a chain of 7,000 islands stretching about 1,000 miles in the south China Sea. 60,000,000 people live in this third world country whose economy for a time was second only to Japan among Asian nations. Such is true no more. For several years its economy has been in shambles, although there is evidence that improvements are being made and that some of the major ills of the nation are being attended to.

The gospel was introduced to the Philippines 70-80 years ago, and brethren can be found on most of the larger islands. The largest concentrations of Christians are found either in Mindanao (Davao City and Zambonga del sur for instance) and Luzon from Manila northward. There are perhaps 500-600 preachers and upwards of 900-1,000 congregations. Some of these churches number 100 or more and occasionally exceed that number (Escoda in Marcos, Ilocos Norte sometimes reaching 150-175 in attendance) but for the greater part, congregations will number from 35-80.

Rural churches often have their own buildings to worship in. In such instances that building will either be a “Nipa hut” (a bamboo structure with a thatched roof) or perhaps a very crude cinder block building. We saw a few of the latter, but when such are found they are as likely as not to have neither doors nor windows. In some areas the building may simply be a shed-type structure with corner posts and either a thatched or iron roof. In many instances there will be no floor but dirt (this is especially true with the “Nipa huts”). Pews will be a board (no back). Air conditioning is non-existent. The congregation might sing from an English hymnbook (discarded books sent from American churches) but the Bible class and sermon will likely be in the dialect spoken in that region. (Contrary to a seemingly general opinion, Spanish is not the national tongue although the Spanish occupation greatly influenced the people as well as the tongue.) There are 50-60 different dialects spoken among these people (one brother jokingly said that men from the Tower of Babel had settled the country), and there are some three to four major dialects. “Tagalog” is the national tongue but English is widely spoken and tourist advertisements style the Philippines as “the second largest English speaking country in the world.”

The communion service will be unlike that brethren here are familiar with. After one prayer (sometimes two in succession) in which thanks is given both for the loaf and the cup, both elements will be served to the congregation but great care is extended to see that the bread is served first. An offering will be taken and the collection may be 60-100 pesos ($2.50 – $4.00 is the equivalent in U.S. currency). Some congregations do have larger offerings (the Angeles City church may range from 900-1,200 pesos, $35-$60) but such is a rare exception. There are few accumulations in the treasuries. As often as not, the offering will immediately be divided among deserving widows in the congregation of which there is usually a great number.

Almost inevitably there will be the blackboard and accompanying chalk. Overhead projectors are almost unknown and American preachers going there might as well leave sermons of such nature at home, dust off their sermons from the 1950s, and plan (or learn) to use the blackboard for their points of illustration. The “white board” is a novelty that I saw in one or two places.

Metropolitan churches, unlike rural brethren, generally do not have their own meeting house. Metro-Manila has perhaps 15-20 congregations, all of which meet either in homes or rented halls. This makes building the work difficult. There is the possibility that the Santa Mesa church in Tondo (downtown Manila) may be able shortly to havetheir property. Fred Agulto (their preacher) tells that land is available, and he has estimated a cost of 80,000 pesos (about $3,700) to build. Such would be a great blessings Should any individual wish to help in such a worthy project. I will be glad to provide further details.

Churches seldom meet more frequently than once each week, although a few do have a mid-week evening service. Such does not indicate disinterest but simply is the result of two primary factors: transportation problems and unavailable preachers to help conduct services. Since few Filipino Christians own their own car or even a motorcycle, they must either walk to worship or pay to ride a jeepney or tricycle. The impoverished status of the ordinary Filipino family makes fares for the family to more than one service a great strain on their budget. Since there are more congregations than there are preachers, many preachers will be busy preaching for two or sometimes three different congregations each Sunday, making it virtually impossible to shuffle back and forth for two services for two different congregations. Despite such a problem with meeting, coupled with the rival attractions of the handsome cathedrals that exist among Catholics, Mormons and Iglesia Ni Christo (a sect that began in the islands that denies the deity of Christ), as well as the comfortable “chapels” that de-nominations have, brethren steadily make converts and the church is growing. The gospel is still a precious thing among many Filipinos and many hundreds are being baptized each year. American dollars spent in evangelism will result in as rich a harvest of souls as can be found anywhere on this globe for truly there “the fields are white unto harvest.” Open doors do not have a history of always staying “open.” In our Savior’s words: “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day for the night cometh when no man can work” (John 9:4).

NEXT ARTICLE: The Filipino Preacher.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 10-11
October 5, 1995