by Dr. William J. McRae, Copyright 2000-2005, Believers Chapel
(References to Living Spirit International by Dr. Ronald Coleman, ThD.)
According to a certain parable. two men met a
great many years ago at a church convention. To their mutual surprise.
they discovered that both had formerly been completely blind and that
Jesus had opened their eyes and given them sight.
"Isn't it marvelous," said the one, "how the
Master makes clay, puts it on your eyes and tells you to go and wash?
Then, when you wash, your eyes are opened and you can see."
"Mud? Jesus doesn't use mud. He just speaks a
word, and you can see."
"Jesus does use mud!"
"He does not. I ought to know. I was blind and He
just spoke a word and my eyes were opened!"
"He does use mud. If He didn't use mud, He didn't
open your eyes. You're still blind. You just think you can see. I'll
have nothing more to do with you. You have denied one of the
fundamentals of our faith."
Presently those whose blind eyes Jesus had opened
with mud came together in an exclusive group. They excluded all others
and they called themselves "The Muddites". And those whose eyes Jesus
had opened without the use of mud joined together also. Of course, they
were called "The Anti-Muddites". These two groups spent their time in
rivalry between themselves while the blind all around them groped
through life not knowing that Someone had come to bring light to all
who walk in darkness.
The
State of the Church
Ridiculous? Not really. It is the tale of twenty
centuries of Christianity. It is a story of divisions and
denominations. This is the state of the church today.
I remember reading many years ago a defense of
denominationalism. It was presented as part of the wisdom of God and I
was quite impressed. The writer drew his analogy from the military.
Just as a nation's military force is diversified with its navy, its air
force, its infantry, its cavalry, its marines, and so on, each playing
a particular part in the overall defense of the nation, so the church
is diversified with its various denominations each with its own truths,
emphases and ministries. Such is the wisdom of God.
Some give their lives for the promotion of a
denomination. Others tolerate the situation. Still others ignore it. A
few fight it.
What should be done? What does God think of it? Is
there any other option? Does it really matter anyway? These, and a
dozen more questions, bombard the mind of the sensitive Christian.
Fortunately, we are not left to our own resources for answers. We do
have a word from God that is very much to the point.
The Church in Corinth
One of the first places this phenomenon of
denominationalism reared its head was in Corinth.
Surely it is instructive that the question of divisions in the Church
there is discussed by the Apostle Paul among the disorders reported to
Paul about some Corinthians (1:10-6:20).
It was one of the four disorders reported to Paul and corrected by him
in this section. More than that, it is the first one he takes on.
Further, he devotes more space to this than to any other single subject
in his entire epistle (1:10-4:20).
The message is loud and clear. Whether they are on
the level of the local church or the universal church, divisions among
Christians are so destructive and defeating that they must be
eliminated. It is to this end that Paul writes.
In the first paragraph, verses 10-17, the Apostle
establishes the fact of divisions in the church in Corinth.
It is to these verses that we will direct our attention in this
booklet.
"Now I exhort
you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all
agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in
the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed
concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels
among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I'm of
Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Has
Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? or were
you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of
you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized
in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond
that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not
send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of
speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."
1 Cor. 1:10-17*
*All Biblical quotations, unless otherwise
indicated, are from the New American Standard Bible.
Here is the portrait of a divided church. What is
the Word from God to Christians participating in such a disorder? In
these verses we will note the apostle's exhortation (v. 10-11), his
description (v. 12), his condemnation (v. 13) and his exultation (v.
14-17). First:
I.
THE APOSTLE'S EXHORTATION
Now I exhort
you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all
agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in
the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed
concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels
among you.
verses 10-11
In a gentle but urgent tone, the apostle begins,
"I exhort you." With warm tender affection he addresses them as
"brethren". Yet there is a note of solemn authority when he implores
them "by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." But what specifically is
this appeal?
A. The Direct Appeal
There is but one exhortation in this verse. It is
"that you all agree." It is simply an appeal for unity or agreement.
Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out that in classical usage this
expression "is used of political communities which are free from
factions or of different states which entertain friendly relations with
each other." We would use it today to describe a group of students who
are doves or a group of senators who are hawks. These are groups of
people where there are no factions, where there is unity.
Paul is now appealing to these Corinthians for
such agreement. This is the unity for which our Lord prayed in John 17
when his prayer was, "that they may be one." This is the unity which
our Lord had said would be the mark of discipleship and He said:
"By this shall
all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one for another."
John 13:35
Paul is not saying there is no room for
differences of opinion among Christians. What he is saying is that
agreement on essentials is a must and that love prevails in all things.
Augustine comes close to the spirit of the exhortation when he says:
In
essentials – unity
In
non-essentials - liberty
In all
things - love
B. The Double Effect
The apostle recognizes that unity or agreements
among them would have a double effect. First, IT WOULD ELIMINATE
DIVISIONS AMONG THEM. "And there be no divisions among you." The word
translated "divisions" here is used in Matthew 9:16 for a "rent" in a
garment. It is used in John 7:43 where there was a "division" among the
people because of Jesus. It is a tear or a schism. As Paul looks at Corinth,
he sees a church torn in pieces. Do you see the cause-effect
relationship here? You have seen it in real life far too often. A
disagreement is the breeding place of a division! Paul's appeal
therefore for agreement is so that there are no schisms among them.
But, there would be another effect as well. only
would agreement eliminate divisions, but IT WOULD RESTORE HARMONY AND
FELLOWSHIP AMONG THE BELIEVERS. Paul says,
"but you are
made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."
When Paul "spoke of them being "perfectly joined
together" (AV) or "made complete" he used the verb Galen had used as a
surgical term for the setting of a broken bone. It's the same verb that
the gospel writers use for the mending of broken nets (Mark 4:21, 1:19). What a
picture word! Paul is concerned, then, with mending breaks in the
church and bringing the believers into a beautiful relation- ship of
harmony with each other in their attitudes ("minds") and opinions
("judgment"). That is why he tenderly, lovingly but authoritatively
appeals to them to agree.
C. The Distressing Report
This urgent exhortation follows a report he had
recently received from the household of Chloe. We do not know anything
more of Chloe than what is found in this verse. She may have been the
blond beauty of Corinth.
Her name means, "the blond" or "the fair one." Her name was a surname
of the goddess Demeter. Since slaves were often named after gods, she
was probably a freed slave. Undoubtedly, she was a wealthy business
woman, something like Lydia,
because she had a household of family slaves. It was some of her slaves
that had come from Corinth
to Ephesus,
where the Apostle Paul was, and had demonstrated with conclusive
evidence to him that there were "contentions" (AV) in the church in Corinth.
It was not merely the differences of opinion to be
expected in every church. What had happened in
Corinth
was that the differences of opinion had led to "quarrels". The word
Paul uses is the same word, by the way, that is used in the list of the
works of the flesh in Galatians 5:20. In that passage, it is translated
"variance." It simply means "wranglings" or "quarrelings."
Now we see precisely what had happened in Corinth.
D. The Devastating Sequence
Among the Christians, there had been differences
of opinion on some matters ("agree" v. 10). Those differences of
opinion had led to quarrels (v. 11), and the quarrels had resulted in
divisions or schisms (v. 10). This is the sequence that has been seen
in the history of the Christian Church innumerable times:
Disagreement
-> Quarrel -> Division
This sequence often leads to the birth of a new
denomination. When we were in Canada,
we lived in a small town about twenty-five miles from another small
town in which a denomination had been born, a spin-off from the
Holiness Group. It originated one night when the tie of Mr. Horner, who
was enthusiastically preaching, became wrapped around his hand. He
concluded the devil was trying to bind him in his preaching. So he tore
his tie off, threw it on the ground, tramped on it, and said ties were
from the devil. From that moment onward he taught that Christians ought
never to wear ties because they bound them in their Christian lives.
This gave rise to a difference of opinion, which led to quarrels, which
led to a division, and today in Canada
there is a group called the "Hornerites". This is the division sequence
at work.
The same sequence leads to splits among churches.
I know of a church that had a difference of opinion on the matter of
speaking in tongues. It led to a quarrel until finally a group of
Christians got up and left. They started their own church down in the
Y.M.C.A. There is the division sequence once again at work.
It is always behind the stage in divisions within
a church as well. In a certain church that did not have any musical
instruments there were some persons who launched a little movement to
purchase an organ for their church. Some were for the organ and some
were against it, but the people that were for it eventually won. An
organ was obtained, but it caused a quarrel that has left a division in
that church.
A difference of opinion that is dealt with in the
flesh issues in quarreling and wrangling. In the heat of debate, a
person becomes convinced that he is right and everybody else is
absolutely wrong. The result? A division! That is exactly what happened
in Corinth.
II.
THE APOSTLE'S DESCRIPTION
"Now I mean
this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of
Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ."
v. 12
Each group had its own slogan, its one person to
follow: Paul, Apollos, Peter or Christ. That is Paul's description of
this factioned church. How did this come to be? Let's see if we can
reconstruct it.
In the church at Corinth,
we know that the divisions were fomented by Jewish false teachers (II
Corinthians 11:13,22).
They discredited the apostolic credentials of Paul before the Gentiles
who had accepted them. Charles Hodge (I Corinthians, p. 13-14) writes:
The
two principal parties in Corinth,
therefore, were Gentiles calling themselves the disciples of Paul, and
Jews claiming to be followers of Peter. The Gentile converts, however,
were not united among themselves. While some said, we are of Paul,
others said, we are of Apollos.
A. Paul's Party
Listen to how a spokesman may have represented
this party:
"Paul was the one who preached when I was saved
you know. He's the founder of our church and I plan to stay loyal to
him. Besides, he has such a beautiful view of a Christian's liberty
regarding circumcision, eating meats offered to idols and observing the
Sabbaths. His liberal view of these things, his wholesome attitude
toward Christian liberty fits perfectly with my background as a Gentile
Corinthian. He's my man!"
B. Apollos' Party
Apollos had come to Corinth
after the departure of Paul (Acts 18). This cultured Greek from Alexandria
had a special appeal to those persons to whom the bodily presence of
Paul seemed very weak and his speech was contemptible. They loved
Apollos' polished style, his eloquence and rhetoric. They objected to
Paul because he was neither a philosopher nor a rhetorician of the
Greek school. Dr. S. L. Johnson, Jr. says there are many modern members
of that cult, such as the woman who said, "I almost weep every time my
pastor pronounces that blessed word, 'Mesopotamia."'
That would have been typical of Apollos' party. Today. there are those
who are captured by the tone of their preacher's voice, or his culture,
or pronunciation. The more obscure a sermon, the greater that sermon
and preacher is. This is the intellectual party - the party of
spiritual sophisticates.
C. Peter's Party
Perhaps their argument went something like this:
"Peter was one of the original apostles, so if
you're tied in with him, you're tied in with headquarters: Jerusalem!
Peter is the man to follow. He's a little older, a little more mature
than those young men, Apollos and Paul. More than that, he is just a
little more rigid when it comes to the Scriptures. He sticks a little
more closely to our Jewish traditions (Galatians 2:11) and
devotes his time to evangelizing us Jews. He is my man."
D. Christ's Party
These were those who said, "I'm not aligned with
Paul, nor Apollos, nor Peter; I'm aligned with Christ. He alone is my
teacher, and I am His disciple. I refuse to take any other name than
His name." There is a familiar ring here. They sound like some today
who declare they gather only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. A
spirit of partisanship prevails and they themselves become a party.
This is the exclusive party.
Dr. H. A. Ironside chuckled as he spoke of a small
church which was identified with an exclusive "splinter" denomination.
The members cut out some gold letters and fastened them in the front of
the church. The letters said JESUS ONLY. One day a gust of wind blew
away the letters JES. Then the sign read, US ONLY. How fitting a
caption for the exclusive party!
Several observations can be made from these
divisions. First, the divisions at Corinth
were not based upon fundamental doctrines of the faith. Do not
misinterpret Paul to be calling for union between believers and
unbelievers, or between theological conservatives and liberals, or
between fundamentalists and apostates. These are not the issues in
First Corinthians. Such unions are not only impossible, but are
categorically unbiblical. Second Corinthians 6:14 says that there should be no
such relationship between believers and unbelievers in their church
fellowship. The believer, the conservative, the one who is true to the
Word of God ought to abandon an apostate situation and testify by his
departure to his commitment to the truth and his loyalty to the Word of
God. Paul is not appealing for unity between believers and unbelievers.
The divisions in Corinth
have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the faith, such as the
virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of our Lord, the
verbal inspiration of Scripture, or the person and work of Jesus
Christ. Where these are being rejected the believer must separate
himself. But the divisions in Corinth
were based upon non-essential doctrines.
Second, these divisions can be traced to personal,
petty preferences, such as racial prejudices, pseudo- intellectualism,
worldly sophistication or old-fashioned self-righteousness. Again, do
not misunderstand Paul. He is not saying that there is no place in a
local church for differences of opinion. Such a situation would not
only be highly unlikely, but it would be undesirable. The followers of
Peter needed the followers of Paul; if there was anything that the
Jewish party needed for a proper spiritual balance, it was the
preaching of Paul and Apollos. By divorcing ourselves from other
believers, by ostracizing ourselves from their teaching, we become
unbalanced in our Christian life and doctrine. Differences in spiritual
emphasis help maintain balance.
However, Paul maintains that we should hold our
differences of opinions without wrangling over them. Such quarreling is
a work of the flesh. The resulting divisions, schisms and parties are
inevitable.
Third, the parties in Corinth
only appear to have been called by the names of great men: Paul,
Apollos, Peter, and Christ. In 4:6, the apostle says:
Now these
things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for
your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written,
in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one
against the other.
The verb translated "figuratively applied" means
to change the outward appearance of a thing, while that thing itself
remains unchanged (cf II Cor. 11:14-15, Phi1 3:21). Apparently, then,
Paul has taken a situation which existed in Corinth
and changed the outward appearance of it. His description is a veiled
allusion to the actual facts. He used the names of Paul, Apollos, Peter
and Christ only as illustrations of the Corinthian situation. Paul was
a master teacher who probably adopted this technique to avoid talking
in generalities and yet prevent the resentment that would come from
using the real names.
Although not called by the names of Paul and
Apollos which were used, the parties in Corinth
were real. Probably they were the Jewish, Intellectual, Liberty,
and Exclusive Parties, which were called by the names of the actual
leaders in the church. This tendency has continued through the
centuries. As a result, today we have the Russellites, Wesleyans,
Lutherans, Mennonites, Calvinists, Arminians, Church
of Christ,
etc. This practice, therefore, began in the earliest days of the
church.
Of course, not only do the names of men identify
parties. The Pentecostal Party has taken the name of an event which is
particularly significant in its doctrine. The Baptist Party has taken
its name from an ordinance which it emphasizes as the means for church
membership. Some are known by their doctrinal emphasis (for example,
the Holiness Group). The Congregationalist, Episcopalian and
Presbyterian Parties are named after their respective methods of church
government.
Such non-essential divisions are all denounced as
wrong. Confronted with this situation in Corinth,
Paul's indignation explodes in a series of questions which condemn all
such partisanship, schisms, divisions and denominations.
III.
THE APOSTLE'S CONDEMNATION
Has Christ been
divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized
in the name of Paul?
v. 13
These three rapid-fire questions are like three
deadly thrusts of a sharp sword. Anyone alone would have been
sufficient to condemn their divisions. Together the three are
devastating.
A. Such divisions are an offense to the
person of Christ.
When Paul asks, "Has Christ been divided?" he is
asking if our Lord has been divided up or parceled out into various
groups. Has one part of Him been given to Paul? Has another part of Him
been given to Peter? Of course not! As Christ is incapable of
divisions, so the church cannot be divided. Divisions are an offense to
the person of Jesus Christ.
B. Such divisions are an offense to the
work of Christ.
"Paul was not crucified for you, was he?" The
"Pauline Party" begins to squirm in their seats. They look at each
other nervously. "Was Paul crucified for you?" "Well, no." "Was it
Paul's blood that redeemed you?" "No, no, that's not true." "Is it Paul
that has purchased you for himself?" "No, not Paul." "Well, who is it?"
Of course, it's the Lord. It was the precious blood of Christ that was
shed for us. Our divisions are an offense to the work of Christ because
it is the work of Christ that has purchased us for Himself. We are His
personal property. Taking any other name, saying we are disciples of
any particular preacher or theologian is an offense to the very work
that Christ has done on our behalf. Believers have no relationship even
to inspired teachers such as to justify being called by their names. We
are called Christians because we belong to Christ.
C. Such divisions are an offense to the
confession of your relationship to Jesus Christ.
Again, he asks, "Were you baptized in (into) the
name of Paul?" What does he mean? Barclay says:
"To
give money into a man's name was to pay it into his account, into his
personal possession. To sell a slave into a man's name was to give that
slave into the absolute and undisputed possession. A soldier swore
loyalty into the name of Caesar and he belonged absolutely to the
emperor."
Robertson and Plummer suggest that the phrase,
"into the name of Jesus Christ" implies "entrance into fellowship and
allegiance as exists between the Redeemer and the redeemed." That helps
us understand the question. "Were you baptized into the name of Paul'?"
"Was your baptism an acknowledgment of the absolute undisputed
authority of Paul in your life'?" Of course the answer is "No."
They were baptized into the name of Christ. In
their baptism, they publicly acknowledged their allegiance to Him. He
was the one who had undisputed claim and authority in their life. None
of the Corinthians were the possession of Paul that they should call
themselves by his name. This was a contradiction of their confession in
baptism.
If I understand verses twelve and thirteen
correctly, I see Paul saying two things to us of tremendous importance.
Directly, he is condemning an ATTITUDE that leads
to parties or factions within the church. There is still just one local
church in Corinth,
but in that church attitudes have developed that have fractured and
fragmented the body.
This tendency is one of the curses of the
contemporary church. Some give to a preacher a loyalty that only God
deserves, and by their attitudes they divide Christians. Others crusade
for a favorite doctrine at the expense of the whole counsel of God, and
by their attitudes they divide churches. Personal prejudices,
preferences, social standings and ethnic backgrounds cultivate
attitudes that often fracture the body.
Indirectly, one can readily see a condemnation of
DENOMINATIONALISM. Paul categorically condemns fragmenting the one church
of Jesus Christ
into segments that are labeled by the names of men or doctrines or days
or any other such thing. Denominationalism is a product of the
carnality of men - not the wisdom of God. We dare not defend it,
tolerate it or ignore it. But how shall we oppose it?
"What denomination are you anyway?" Hardly a week
goes by that I am not asked this question. Recently I asked one of our
deacons how he answered that question. He responded: "The same
denomination that Paul was." Now that's not a bad answer. What
denomination was Paul? None! In the New Testament church,
denominationalism did not exist.
Someone has said that the New Testament church was
like a bottle of medicine that had many ingredients in it, but no
label. It practiced baptism but there were no Baptists. It believed in
predestination, but there were no Presbyterians. It believed in the -
Holy Spirit but there were no Methodists. It observed the Lord's Supper
but there were no Plymouth Brethren. It feared God, but there were no
Quakers. There were bishops but no Episcopalians. The early church, you
see, was a church where all the ingredients were present, but there
were no labels that fragmented the church.
Living Spirit International nondenominational and
we practice the principles of the New Testament. We have no
organizational affiliation with any other church. We refuse to take any
name that will fragment the church
of Jesus Christ,
because we recognize that to do so is an offense to the person of
Christ, an offense to the work of Christ, and an offense to our very
confession of allegiance to Christ.
John Wesley once was very troubled in regard to
the status of the various denominations and the chances of each with
regard to future happiness or punishment. In a dream one night he
imagined that he was transported to the gates of hell.
"Are there any Romans Catholics here?" asked the
thoughtful Wesley.
"Yes," was the reply. "Any Presbyterians?"
"Yes," was again the answer. "Any
Congregationalists?" "Yes."
"Any Methodists?" by the way of a clincher asked
the pious Wesley.
"Yes," was the answer, to his great indignation.
In the mystic way of dreams, there was a sudden
transition, and he stood at the gates of heaven. Improving his
opportunity, he again inquired:
"Are there are Roman Catholics here?" "No," was
the reply. "Any Presbyterians?" "No."
"Any Congregationalists?" "No."
"Well, then," he asked, confused, "who is inside?"
"Christians!" was the jubilant answer.
That is exactly what the Scriptures teach. My dear
Christian friend, it is toward this mentality that Paul exhorts us in
these verses: I am a Christian, nothing else. I will take the name of
no other person, no other organization. Any other name would be an
offense to the person of Christ, to the fact that He is the One who
died for me and purchased me with His precious blood, and to the fact
that when I was baptized as a believer, I confessed my allegiance to
Him. There is no other name than the name of Christ that I, as a
Biblical Christian, can ever take.
A WARNING !
But beware. An organization that takes no other
name than "Christian" can be very denominational in attitude. Those who
said. "I am of Christ" were just as wrong as those who said, "I am of
Paul." They included in their party only those who said "I am of
Christ" and excluded from their party all others. As believers in Jesus
Christ who want to be biblical and faithful, we will take only the name
of Jesus Christ, but not for a moment will we exclude from our
fellowship or from our warm companionship another Christian who may
take another name.
Living Spirit International is independent,
seeking to follow the principles of the New Testament.
Any confessing Christian is welcome.
Do you see what must be avoided? It is what Paul
is condemning in this passage. He condemns primarily the attitude of
sectarianism, of denominationalism. We will never, by God's grace,
permit ourselves to ever cultivate such an attitude that will fragment
the church
of Christ.
Indirectly he is condemning the practice of denominationalism. Again,
by God's grace, we will never take a name or a position that will deny
the oneness of the Body of Christ. May God help us always to testify by
our attitudes and actions to the unity of the Body of Christ.
IV.
THE APOSTLE'S EXULTATION
I thank God
that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man
should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the
household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized
any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the
gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should
not be made void.
verses 14-17
In Corinth,
Paul himself had baptized very few converts. He does not consider this
a matter of chance but of providential direction and joyfully thanks
God for it. Now he sees the purpose! If he had baptized more people, he
would have been open to the charge of trying to create a party for
himself. If more people had been baptized by him, they would have had
their basis strengthened for saying that they belonged to Paul. Knowing
this, Paul thanks God in His providence for keeping him from baptizing
more people in Corinth.
Do not misunderstand Paul here. He is not saying
that baptism is unimportant. On the contrary, our Lord commands it
(Matthew 28:19-20); the early church practiced it (Acts 2.8.10.16.
etc.); and the Apostle Paul expounded it in Romans 6. It is an act of
public confession of faith in Christ. So Paul does not minimize its
importance. He assumes every Christian at Corinth
has been baptized.
Why, then, did Paul not baptize more people? He
gives us his own answer: He says that he was not sent to baptize but to
preach the Gospel. That is a remarkable statement. Could Paul have said
it if baptism was necessary for salvation? No, he distinguishes between
baptism and the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that Christ has
died for the sins of men and women and will freely forgive and save
each one who will simply turn to Him and personally receive Him as
their Savior. Freely, as a gift, salvation will be given to them. Paul
defines the gospel that he preached.
"For I
delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was
buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures…"
I Corinthians 15:3-4
This was the message that led to their salvation.
Baptism is not a part of becoming a Christian. Paul could never have
said what he said if baptism was a condition of salvation. Paul's
commission then was primarily to preach the Gospel; baptism was a work
which the Lord and the apostles generally left to others (John 4:1,
Acts 10:48).
Paul's commission included not only a priority
regarding the preaching of the Gospel. but also a particular manner of
preaching it. It was not to be in the wisdom of words. That is, it was
not to be with the flowery eloquent speech of the professional
rhetorician, or with the speculations of philosophy. That kind of
preaching obscures the cross. When the cross of Christ and the message
of the Gospel are embellished with flowery rhetoric or with
philosophical dissertations, it appeals to men's intellect. When the
cross of Christ is simply preached, it appeals to man's guilt. We learn
that when God gave His Son to die upon that cross for us, it was
because, before God, we were guilty sinners. The former type of
preaching attracts men to the preacher, so that they leave saying, "My,
isn't he a great speaker? Isn't his intellect astounding?" The
apostle's presentation of the Gospel caused men and women to leave
having been attracted to Christ. Their hearts were moved when they
realized that God's Son came and willingly and freely gave His life to
die as their substitute, bearing the wrath of God for their sin that
they might be forgiven and saved. The former type of preaching leads
men and women to put their confidence and their trust in human wisdom
and in human devices. The apostle's kind of preaching leads men and
women by the Holy Spirit, to come simply and quietly to the cross of
our Lord Jesus and say, "Lord Jesus, I realize that I'm a guilty sinner
and you
have died for me. I want to trust You personally
as my Savior and depend upon You and Your work upon the cross alone for
my salvation."
My dear friend, if you will do that today, God, in
His matchless grace, has promised that He will forgive your sins and
will receive you into His family as one of His children, and you shall
be saved. May God help you quietly just now to come to the cross. Stand
simply before Him as a guilty sinner. Thank Him for dying for you.
Place your trust for your salvation in Him and in His work alone.
For God so
loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
|