Thursday, November 5, 2015

DENYING GOD'S WORD? by steve finnell

How much of God's word can you deny or change and still be saved? Did God give denominations the authority to deny and change His doctrine? I do not think so!

A friend of mine once told me he worshiped on the sabbath. I ask him if he worshiped on Saturday, he said no, our denomination changed the sabbath to Sunday. The problem is denominations are not authorized to change God's word.(NOTE: Christians worship on the Lord's Day, which is Sunday)

1.There are those who say you do not have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be saved.

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."(NKJV)

Can you deny John 8:24? And still be saved?(NKJV)

2. There are many, who claim to be Christians, who proclaim that Jesus is one of many ways to heaven.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.(NKJV)

Can you deny that Jesus is the only way to heaven?And still be saved?

3. There are some who change Scripture to conform with their denominational doctrine.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them. "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)

Can you say change the translation of(Acts 2:38) from "for" to "because of" in order to validate the denominational position of salvation by faith only, denying immersion in water for forgiveness from sins? And still be saved?

Can you imply that, shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit actually means, you received the gift of the Holy Spirit before you were baptized? And still be saved?

4. Can you deny that prayer is worship and then pray to the Virgin Mary and other dead saints? And still be saved?

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" (NKJV)

5. Can you deny or change the meaning of Scripture to conformed to denominational creeds and still be saved?

Mark 16:16 He who has believed, and has been immersed, will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.(The Better Version of the New Testament by Chester Estes)

Can denominations change Mark 16:16 to say "He who has believed is saved by faith alone and should be baptized as a testimony of their faith? And still be saved?

Can churches change Mark 16:16 to say "He who has been baptized as an infant has had their sin forgiven and can believe later to confirm their salvation? And still be saved?

Can denominations change Mark 16:16 to say "He who has believed has been given the choice to be immersed, sprinkled or poured? And still be saved?

6. Can denominations change Ephesians 4:5 to fit their views? And still be saved?

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;(NKJV)

Can denomination teach there is more than one Lord and still have their members be saved?

Can you believe there is more than one faith? And still be saved?

It it possible to believe that there is more than one baptism that washes away sin? And still be saved? (Acts 22:16)

It it possible to believe that there is more that one baptism that saves you? And still be saved? (Mark 16:16)

How much of God's doctrine can men deny or change and still be saved?



  1. From Strongs: "Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
    This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

  2. From Francis A. Schaefer: The words baptizo and bapto in the classical Greek are used with great latitude. Neither of these words can be said always to mean immerse. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word "baptize" is used in such a way that it could not possibly always mean immersion. For example. in Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew. In the New Testament use of the word, it is equally true that the word 'baptize" cannot always mean immersion. For example, in Hebrews 9:10, we read:

    "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

    I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage:

    "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

    Mark 7:4 is also clear: "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Again in the King James Version, the word "washings" is used, but the Greek again is "baptizing". If baptize always means immerse, it means that the Jews, each time they came from the market place, had to fill a tub with water and go under, head and all. This is impossible, for most of them had no such accommodation in their homes. Further, this passage would also say that they constantly immersed their tables. This is again obviously impossible. Many of the ancient versions add "and couches" to this passage. To say that they regularly immersed their beds, even if they did use bed rolls, is foolish.

    At least three of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are difficult to imagine as immersion. The eunuch was baptized by a desert road. The jailer was baptized in the middle of the night. Three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. It is easy to see how these took place if sprinkling or pouring were used, it is difficult if immersion is taken as the only mode.

  3. Greetings James Lawson.

    Is the point of your two replies that pouring or sprinkling is just as good as immersion? All this to convince someone that when offered a choice of baptism modes one is as good as the other. Steve's post spoke of: "faith in Jesus alone", "baptism for the remission of sins", "praying to the dead", "infant baptism" and you key in on modes of baptism?

    It takes very little effort to "muddy up the waters" of any Biblical concept no matter how simple or clear it may be. The god of the Bible is not a god of confusion.

    When John the Baptist was baptizing the masses in Judea. he chose the Jordan River because there was "much water". If a little sprinkling would have done the job why not just tote a water jug and head into the city? Why make them travel to the river? The eunuch stopped the chariot, why? Because he saw a body of water large enough to be immersed into. Surely the eunuch had a container of water that Philip could have sprinkled him with.

    I have never heard of any group claiming that immersion is the wrong mode of baptism, this should give people pause to think. When considering how important baptism is to salvation and given the scriptures examples, it would be unwise to insist on pouring or sprinkling. But if you don't like getting your feet wet or willing to trust a 2000 year old pickle recipe, go right ahead.

    Your mindset is like many others, willing to fight the obvious and blind to the simple truth of the gospel.


Anonymous comments will not be posted