How long should a believer wait before being baptized?

How long should a believer wait before being baptized?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16)" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:16) doesn’t teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Unbelievers, not "the unbaptized" will be damned. Faith is Christ is sufficient for salvation. Baptism, however, is the expected evidence of such faith. Peter commanded the converts in Cornelius’ house to be baptized (Acts 10:48)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48). Clearly, those who guide new believers are responsible to encourage and direct them to be baptized. New believers receive enrichment by learning the meaning of baptism, but obedience to Christ does not depend on understanding doctrine. Did baptized believers in Acts understand union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection?

Even in Acts (Cornelius, the jailer, Saul of Tarsus), evidence of conversion preceded baptism. Currently, a person who professes to be saved and is baptized occasionally discovers he was not saved. If he is saved subsequently, he must be baptized a second time. It is very doubtful if the testimony of the second baptism is as effective as the first. We need wisdom to avoid unnecessary "second baptisms." Allowing adequate time for a new believer to prove the reality of his salvation is wise. Our conditions are different from those in Acts; of the thousands of converts in Acts, perhaps only one (Simon, the sorcerer) was false. In our day, we need ample evidence that those we baptize have divine life.

Prematurely baptizing those who later prove they were not saved never helps the work of the gospel; furthermore, it dishonors the Lord Jesus by giving skeptics cause for mocking the life-transforming power of the gospel. As in so many matters, balance is needed. A prolonged time between salvation and baptism implies that we support optional obedience to Scripture. Too short a time can endanger our gospel testimony. A person’s personality, past, and depth of character, added to our experience with occasional "fireworks Christians" (launched with a flash of light and noise, but fade into the night), affect how soon after conversion we are willing to baptize him.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do Christians drink wine at the Lord's Supper but at no other time?

Am I right in refusing to take the cup at the Lord’s Table because it is not “non-alcoholic”?

That the wine used by the Lord at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was the ordinary wine of the country, nothing but special pleading can deny. The vintage was then long past, so that any idea of fresh grape juice and water is ruled out. At Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: ), the erroneous idea had crept in that the Lord’s Supper was to be a meal, and each brought his or her provisions, and “one was hungry and another drunken”! How does the apostle meet this scandal? Not by advocating the use of some substitute for the ordinary wine used, but by showing that it was not a meal, but a memorial act, for which a morsel of bread or a sup of wine sufficed. I am not advocating the habitual use of wine as a beverage; on the contrary, but for anyone to refuse to partake of the cup, which the Lord Himself instituted, because it contains wine, which some have abused, seems like setting up himself to be wiser than God, and to incur a serious responsibility.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I know what work to do for God?

How can I know what work to do for God?

What a valuable expression of devotion to the Lord!

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:10) teaches us God’s way of entrusting lesser responsibilities initially. In fact, lifelong willingness to do "that which is least" is becoming for bondservants (see Philippians 2:5)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:5). Mark 12:34," TARGET="_blank">Mark 12:34, "The Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who . . . gave . . . to every man his work," highlights the Lord’s manner: He desires to employ every hand and entrusts to each of us our personal responsibility. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might" (Ecclesiastes 9:10)" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:10) advocates putting all our strength into what we do; that is especially appropriate for spiritual work.

Three factors may guide us in fulfilling our responsibility. First, our work will present itself to us. As part of living daily by the power of the Spirit, we should expect perceived need to encounter spiritual opportunity (Genesis 24:27)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:27). Second, our work will not be disruptive. The Scriptures use a body to illustrate assembly functioning (Romans 12:5;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:27)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:27). If we assume we are a "thumb" and our functioning displaces another believer, we are either on the wrong hand (going about our work in the wrong way) or misdirected (doing the wrong work). Third, our work will have encouragement. Seeking others’ approval ought to be disappointing, yet the absence of encouragement should produce humble waiting on God. Work done for the Lord will eventually have His encouragement, perhaps in small, very personal ways, and the encouragement of respected believers. Only intimacy with God, however, can impart the essential awareness in the soul that a particular work, especially public service, is God-given.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a single person be an elder?

Can a single person be an elder?

Yes. If the Spirit has developed shepherd care in the heart of a single brother and the brother expresses that care in a character consistent with 1 Timothy 3:1-7," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6-9, and 1 Peter 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:13, God apparently has called him to that work.

This question stems from the words, "the husband of one wife" (1Tim. 3:3;" TARGET="_blank">1Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:6)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6). Three considerations clarify this statement: the context; a comparison; a construction. The context in 1 Timothy 3:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2 describes moral character. The overseer’s character must be blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behavior. Dealing with hospitality, Paul doesn’t say he must show hospitality (that would describe acts), but that he must be given to hospitality (describing a characteristic). "Apt to teach," judging by its only other usage (2 Timothy 2:24)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:24), likewise appears to describe character. The following verse also deals with character and that seems to be the emphasis through verse 6.

By comparison, the expression in 1 Timothy 5:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:9 is "the wife of one husband." The description of the woman here and of the man in 3:2 is consistent. First, this can hardly apply to polygamy, since that doesn’t involve a woman’s being married to more than one man. It hardly seems fair for Paul to state that a true widow who will receive financial support from the assembly can only have been married once. Five verses later, he advises younger widows to marry. If, in later life, they were again widowed, by obeying God’s Word to remarry they became ineligible for financial assistance, even though they otherwise qualified. The expression then must describe her as a woman who was obviously faithful to her husband before her widowhood and retained that dignity when she became widowed. The overseer, by comparison, must be above reproach in relating to women.

The construction of Titus 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6 and 7 is instructive. Verse 7 insists on the irreproachable character of an overseer. Verse 6 is a conditional clause, "if any be blameless" in family life. If married, he must evidently be faithful; if a parent, the respect in which his children hold him supports his character.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How does a husband meet his wife

How does a husband meet his wife’s needs spiritually?

This is the most important aspect of a husband’s responsibility as the head of his wife (Eph 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">Eph 5:23). Christ is the head of the Church. As such, He has fully devoted Himself to her complete spiritual blessing (v. 27). Christ is fully able to accomplish this, whereas a husband does not have this capability. In his measure, however, this is his goal. While Christ takes complete responsibility for the Church’s condition, a husband will only give account of His own condition at the Judgment Seat of Christ. He will be responsible for how he contributed to his wife’s spiritual maturity, but she will be accountable for her own spiritual condition. No one can force another to be saved or to make spiritual progress. By force, a husband can at most produce an appearance of spiritual growth; this is only self-serving and lacks glory for the Lord.

Since he is dependent on the Lord for the spiritual growth of his wife, a husband is wise to first of all pray specifically for this. If his wife is not saved, a saved husband obviously has this responsibility, but it is equally relevant if his wife is saved (1Pe 3:11, 12)." TARGET="_blank">1Pe 3:11, 12).

Reading the Scriptures with his wife contributes to her receiving nourishment. Sharing with her the food that he is enjoying from the Scriptures is also important.

Perhaps most important is recognizing that a husband will have little ability to meet his wife’s spiritual needs if he is not meeting her needs in every other area of their life together.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Joseph practice fortune telling or divination?

Are we to understand from Genesis 45:5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 45:5,18 that Joseph actually used divination?

Though divination was common in Egypt, it is hard to suppose that a pious believer in the true God like Joseph should use such practices. Moreover, as one in close touch with God and an interpreter of dreams, etc., what drawing could he have to descend to such heathenish customs?

The cup may very well have been similar to those used for this purpose, but it is noticeable that Joseph only says to his brethren, “wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?” (v. 15), without affirming that he did. It must be admitted that his word through his steward does seem to go further. The true explanation may be that in order to keep up his character before his brethren, as an orthodox Egyptian, so as the more effectually to carry out his deliberate plan for their conviction and restoration, he might feel justified in conveying this momentary impression that he divined. If he did so, it is not commended nor is it specifically blamed. We are aware in reading the Old Testament that even men of God had not the same standards of truthfulness, that are binding on us to-day. The word here for “divine” (nihesh) is translated, “I have learned by experience” (Genesis 30:27)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 30:27), and “did diligently observe” (1 Kings 20:33)," TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 20:33), but generally, “to use enchantments” (2 Kings 17" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 17: I7 2 Kings 21:6)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 21:6). Such divination is strictly forbidden later in the Word of God (see Levticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 19:10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 19:10).
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does "breaking bread" in Acts always refer to the Lord's Supper?

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How should an assembly approach the subject of homosexuality?

How can we fulfill this responsibility effectively?

Those who teach the young or work with younger believers must be prepared to handle this subject appropriately. Bible Readings on related subjects or relevant passages should include considered comments on this topic.

At some point in gospel meetings or gatherings for Christian teaching, believers or unbelievers who have this tendency, who have imbibed society’s thinking on the subject, or who have committed such acts will be present. On some occasions, parents whose hearts are broken because of the intrusion of this sin into their family will be present. Harsh denunciations of this sin, expressions of personal revulsion, or snide references to the common idioms for this behavior are insensitive and unbecoming. Any form of speech that offends the moral sensitivities of the listeners or that compromises the dignity of God’s Word and sacred truth is inappropriate. Any statements deemed as irrational or merely emotional are counterproductive; the compelling authority of Scripture is our sole basis of persuasion.

Compassionate teaching regarding the life-transforming power of God’s grace offers hope for those enslaved by sin. The sanctifying power of God’s Word, of the indwelling Spirit, and of abiding in Christ can deliver from lust. None of us have avoided some experience with lust and sin’s slavery; we cannot be condescending.

In no case should our aversion to the subject limit our interest or expressions of loving help to those engaging in such behavior. Neither our words nor acts should build an emotional or social wall between "us and them." Fulfilling our responsibility to care for others, reach all with the gospel, maintain a godly testimony, and preserve holiness in our own lives requires divine wisdom and power.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in

Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in “Ruth” and Matthew 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:5?

Comparing the dates, this would seem impossible.

We certainly believe in their identity. Only one person of the name is known in the Old Testament (the “Rahab” of Psalm 87:4," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 87:4, etc., being a poetical designation for Egypt); and Matthew mentions a person of that name, living at the same epoch, as the well-known woman, without further description, as though everyone would know who was meant. This seems to point clearly to Rahab of Jericho. In the book of Ruth only three generations are given—Boaz, Obed and Jesse—between Salmon, the prince of Judah, who married Rahab, and David. The story of Ruth does not come chronologically after “Judges,” but as v. i of chap. i. tells us, is embedded in its history—”in the days when the judges ruled.” Salmon may have married Rahab many years after the taking of Jericho. The 450 years of the judges begin at the partition of the land and go on to Saul (Acts 13:20)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:20). Possibly Boaz was the son of the old age of Salmon and we know he was himself elderly when he married Ruth. There are still serious difficulties, but no doubt if we knew all, all would be plain. Perhaps the desire to find a second Rahab is due to a feeling as to her antecedents. The other women mentioned along with her in our Lord’s genealogy had all some disability. At least Rahab and Ruth were trophies of divine grace; and what are we to say of the wicked men in the genealogy, Rehoboam, Ahaz, Joram, Jehoiakim, etc.? Indeed, of the best of the links in the chain we must say, “All these once were sinners defiled in His sight.” Not one was worthy to be an ancestor of our Lord. But our Lord, though truly man by virgin birth, was completely detached from any inherited taint of the sin of Adam, by the fact of His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. He was “that Holy Thing” from His mother’s womb. He knew no sin, neither was sin in Him. Let go that, and Christianity must go at once, as far as we are concerned.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a believer bind Satan or reprove him?

Do Christians have the ability or the authority to bind Satan?

No. Instead of confronting the Devil with strong language, we need to approach God with our needs and let Him deal with the situation whatever the problem may be.

Despite the frequent claims from some quarters of Christian churches that believers should “bind” Satan through strong prayers or demands against him, there is no basis in Scripture for a believer to be “binding” Satan.

An example of the error

A prayer to “bind” Satan usually takes the form of something like this:

“In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, I come against you, Satan, the Prince of Darkness to bind you, paralyzing your power, forbidding you to come near this person and influencing her thinking. I demand that you leave her immediately!”

By “binding” Satan, claims are made to be able to paralyze Satan or silence him or forbid him from influencing a person. As powerful as this commanding prayer may sound, it is unscriptural. Nobody in the history of the Bible ever spoke to Satan this way, nor are we commanded to speak to him like this.

How to oppose Satan

The believer can oppose Satan by correctly teaching and applying the truth of Scripture to our doctrine and behavior. Two examples of this command to oppose Satan are found in 1 John 4:1-14" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:1-14 and James 4:7." TARGET="_blank">James 4:7.

In 1 John 4," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4, the way to overcome Satan is to hold to sound teaching in regards to the divinity of Jesus Christ. He is truly God and truly a man. Any claim to the contrary is a doctrine of Satan that must be corrected.

1 John 4:1-4" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:1-4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (2) By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, (3) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (4) Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

In James 4:7," TARGET="_blank">James 4:7, the command to “resist” the Devil does not imply chastise, bind, scold, paralyze or attack Satan. Rather it is to yield oneself to God for His will. What is the attack that Satan is utilizing in James 4" TARGET="_blank">James 4? What form of demon is apparent here? The first few verses of the chapter tell us that the Devil is behind our selfishness, quarreling and intense covetousness. Resisting Satan implies yielding to the work of the Holy Spirit who gives us his character which is seen in the fruit that He produces in us according to Galatians 5:22-26." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:22-26.

James 4:1-10" TARGET="_blank">James 4:1-10 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? (2) You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. (3) You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (4) You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (5) Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? (6) But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (7) Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (8) Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. (9) Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. (10) Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

Satan will be bound

Satan indeed will be “bound” by an angel for 1,000 years during the Millennium (Revelation 20:1-3)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:1-3). This means that Satan is as good as defeated already. His end is known. However, the work of binding him is done by the angel who in truth can paralyze his movements, stem his influence and shut his mouth.

Revelation 20:1-3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. (2) And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (3) and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Avoid railing

The Scripture stresses that "Michael made not a railing accusation against Satan over Moses’ body" (Jude 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:9). This shows us the seriousness in dealing with Satan. It wasn’t for being too frail that Michael refrained from railing against Satan. Michael the Archangel has power over the Devil. For example, there was a demon in the Book of Daniel who was withstanding an angel. Michael came to remove him without any difficulty (Daniel 10:13)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 10:13). In Revelation 12:7-9" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:7-9 Michael and the other angels fight and defeat Satan, casting him out. Satan is just as good as defeated already.

The point that Jude is making that we need to be very careful in dealing with spiritual powers. Again, looking at Jude 1:9," TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:9, Michael, the Archangel, did not dare to bind Satan, or even rebuke Satan. He deferred the job of rebuking Satan to the Lord GOD. It’s awfully presumptuous to think I could exercise such authority. He is telling us to be very careful how you play around with that dimension, even Michael was careful not to get himself involved with Satan in an argument. The point there that is being made is not that Satan is a match for Michael, but that Michael recognized the fearfulness of dealing with the devil, and it’s a warning to the believer to stay away from those things, which are the manifestation of the devil.

Instead of confronting the Devil with strong language, we need to approach God with our needs and let Him deal with the situation.

Shad Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu