Category: Theology

Posted on

Did Jesus Die on the Cross or Merely Faint?

John 19

28Jesus knew that everything was now finished, and to fulfill the Scriptures he said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to his lips. 30When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31The Jewish leaders didn’t want the victims hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath at that, because it was the Passover), so they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. 32So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. 33But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was dead already, so they didn’t break his legs. 34One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. 35This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account; it is presented so that you also can believe. 36These things happened in fulfillment of the Scriptures that say, “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37and “They will look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:28-37, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Christianity stands or falls on one event – the resurrection.

Over the years, critics of Christianity have promoted a number of theories to argue that the resurrection never actually happened. If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, Christianity is nothing more than another moral code.

One of the more novel theories to explain away a supernatural resurrection is the Swoon theory, which suggests that Jesus never actually died on the cross but merely fainted. Later, after he was buried, the cool air of the tomb revived him. He emerged from the tomb alive and people mistakenly believed that he had resurrected.

There are numerous problems with this theory.

First of all, if Jesus did indeed faint and then was revived, how is it that he had the strength to move a 2-ton boulder that covered the tomb entrance and then overcome the armed battalion that guarded the tomb?

Jesus was brutally whipped and scourged before he was even nailed to the cross. He was so weak from the lashes and the beating at the hands of the Roman soldiers that he wasn’t even able to carry his own cross to the crucifixion site.

He then hung on a cross for hours, which undoubtedly weakened him further. Even if he did not die, he was in critical condition. Yet this theory wants us to believe that a person in his condition was able to unravel himself from 75 pounds of grave clothes, then move a 2-ton boulder out of the way, fend off a contingency of elitely trained and armed Roman guards so that he could later appear to his followers and declare himself to be the resurrected Messiah. This would take more faith than believing in an actual resurrection.

Secondly, as C.S. Lewis has argued, if Jesus merely fainted and then emerged alive, declaring himself to be the resurrected Messiah, he would more aptly be compared to the devil than to God. Why is that?

In this scenario, Jesus would have foisted the greatest scam on people in the history of the world. Jesus, knowing he wasn’t God, would’ve had to have deceptively convinced people to give their lives for something that was a bold-faced lie.

As Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, this line of reasoning does not align with what we know about Jesus the man, namely that he was the greatest moral teacher the world has ever known.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Yet the Swoon theory forces us to believe that Jesus was not really a moral teacher as much as he was the best snake oil salesman who ever lived. He was so good, in fact, that most people still don’t realize they’ve been scammed.

Those are the philosophical reasons to reject the Swoon theory. However, there is evidence from this passage in John 19 that refutes the very basis of the Swoon theory.

The Swoon theory rests on the premise that Jesus didn’t actually die. Yet this passage provides convincing proof that Jesus indeed DID die.

How so?

Verse 31 tells us that the Jewish leaders didn’t want the crucified victims to be hanging on the cross during the Sabbath which was quickly approaching. The legs of crucifixion victims were often broken in order to hasten death. Essentially, the victims would no longer be able to push themselves up on the cross to inhale and they would suffocate rather quickly after their legs were broken. The text says that the soldiers broke the legs of the other two men who were crucified with Jesus. However, with Jesus, the soldiers saw that he was already dead, so there was no need to break his legs.

This is strong evidence that Jesus was already dead, contrary to those who might claim that he had only fainted or passed out.

There is another, even more convincing piece of evidence from this passage that demonstrates that Jesus was definitely dead when he came off that cross.

After the soldiers decided NOT to break Jesus’ legs, the text says that one of the soldiers took a spear and pierced Jesus’ side. There is no explanation as to why he decided to do that. What is interesting though is the description of what happened next. It says that “blood and water flowed out.”

The description of “blood and water” is significant. The author would not have had a medical understanding at that time that this was evidence of death. Blood and water would not have separated if Jesus were still alive but the fact that it WAS visibly separated PROVES that Jesus was dead.

Since this medical understanding was unknown in Jesus’ time, one cannot claim that the author deceptively described it this way in order to promote a false risen savior narrative.

One may still be unconvinced that Jesus resurrected, but one thing is certain, Jesus DID die. The idea that he fainted but then somehow emerged and declared himself to be the resurrected Messiah takes more faith than believing in the resurrection.

What this reveals is that for many, facts and rational explanations are not necessary in order to reject Jesus. All that’s necessary is a hardened heart.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Do you think the Swoon theory is an adequate explanation for Jesus’ death on the cross? Why or why not?

If Jesus did only faint on the cross instead of actually dying, how do you explain a) the soldiers not breaking his legs, b) the description of water and blood flowing from the pierced side, c) Jesus’ ability to move the stone that covered the entrance and d) his ability to fend off the armed soldiers who guarded the tomb?

Do you agree with C.S. Lewis, that Jesus could not be considered a good moral teacher if he in fact KNEW that he hadn’t died and had not resurrected but yet convinced people that he DID resurrect? How does Lewis’s argument bolster the case for a supernatural resurrection?

Why do you think someone would believe this alternate explanation which requires a number of logical leaps instead of just believing what the text claims, which is that Jesus was resurrected?

 

Photo by Nik Shuliahin 💛💙 on Unsplash

Posted on

Is Baptism a Part of the Gospel Message?

1 Corinthians 1

10I appeal to you, brothers,] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

What is required for salvation?

That’s a basic question that every religious system should be able to answer.

Traditional Christianity says that salvation comes to those who place their faith in Jesus, who died on a cross to pay the penalty that we deserve for our sins.

However, there are some within the Christian tradition who hold to the view that baptism is an essential step in the salvation process. So in addition to believing in Jesus, one must also be physically baptized, with water, in order to be fully saved.

Is this true? Does one need to be baptized in order to be saved?

I think this passage in 1 Corinthians gives us some insight to address this question.

The context of this passage is that Paul is addressing some problems in the Corinthian church that were creating divisions.

The source of these divisions is that people in the church were aligning themselves with different leaders. I wrote about this passage and the divisions that we can experience in my blog post  “Name Dropping in the Early Church”, as well as my post, “Political Divisions within the Church”.

What’s interesting about this passage, though, is that Paul, while addressing the divisions that were occurring in the church, tangentially speaks to the issue of baptism.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

The source of the divisions is that people in the church were aligning themselves with various leaders. These leaders were becoming the central figure for each faction instead of Jesus being the central figure for the whole church. So in essence, you had the Paul faction, the Apollos faction, the Cephas faction and so on.

Paul’s argument is that Jesus isn’t divided. Therefore, his church shouldn’t be divided into factions of people who are identifying with certain popular figures. Instead, the church should be united with everyone identifying with and following Jesus.

To make his case, Paul asks a number of rhetorical questions:

Was Paul crucified for you? (Obviously, the answer is NO)

Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (Again, the answer is obviously NO)

Paul then makes an interesting statement. He says that he is thankful that he didn’t baptize many of the Corinthians. He is glad about that because then they could not claim to have been baptized into Paul’s name. Paul did not want believers making him more important than Jesus.

This begs the question: if baptism is essential for salvation, why would Paul be thankful and glad that he didn’t baptize many people? Wouldn’t he be sad that he hadn’t been able to save many people?

Paul completes his thought with the following statement:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel

it’s easy to gloss over this statement but what’s important is the fact that Paul is claiming that his goal, his mandate, was to preach the gospel.

A question I have often asked people when engaging in this discussion:

If a person responds to the gospel, will they be saved?

I think most Christians would agree that the gospel message contains everything that is necessary for a person to become saved if they respond positively to the message.

In fact, Paul, n Romans 1:16-17 says,

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.

According to Paul, the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation.”

Now if the gospel message saves people and Paul says that he was sent by Christ to preach the gospel and NOT baptize people, then clearly, baptism is NOT a part of the salvation message, which means it is NOT necessary for a person to be saved.

This does not mean that baptism is not important or that there isn’t some significance to it. There is. It’s just not necessary to be saved.

To learn more about what baptism is and its significance to the Christian, please read the following related posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What do you think are the essential elements of the gospel message? 

If baptism is necessary for salvation why does Paul say that Jesus did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel?

If baptism is NOT necessary for salvation, what is the purpose? Why is it practiced?

In verse 13, Paul asks the question, “were you baptized into the name of Paul?” What do you think that means? What does it mean to be baptized “into the name” of another person? How does this understanding of the word “baptize” shed light on the issue of whether baptism is necessary for salvation or not?

 

Photo by Alex Shute on Unsplash

Posted on

Does Acts 2:38 Teach That You Must Be Baptized to Be Saved?

Acts 2

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

(Acts 2:37-41, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Over the last month or so, I’ve made a number of posts regarding baptism. The reason for this is that early in June of 2026, I had an online interaction with a Mormon who, in his attempt to argue for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that baptism was necessary for salvation. He posted a number of verse references as evidence for his position and I have been responding to the verses he mentioned as they turn up in my daily Bible reading.

Note: there are a number of mainline Christian denominations that also hold this view that baptism is essential for salvation, the most notable being the Church of Christ.

A few days ago, I read Acts 2, which includes what I would consider to be the cornerstone verse that is used by those who consider baptism to be essential for salvation (a doctrine known as “baptismal regeneration”).

The context for this passage is as follows:

In Acts 1, Jesus tells his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait, because in a few days they would all be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I expound on this passage more in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?”

In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon the Jerusalem believers and the church is officially born.

The event causes a stir and a lot of locals are wondering what is happening as they can see the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these disciples. This provides an opportunity for Peter to preach the first gospel sermon to the many onlookers.

Our passage above picks up right at the conclusion of Peter’s sermon, which prompts a response from the audience, to which Peter gives the aforementioned Acts 2:38 directive.

On the surface,  Acts 2:38 appears to indeed teach that baptism is necessary in order to be granted forgiveness for sins. However, it’s important to understand that this verse was originally written in Greek. The Greek word “for” in this verse is “eis“, which can have two different meanings.

The first meaning this word can have is “in order that”. The verse would then be understood to mean that we should each repent and be baptized “in order that” we could experience forgiveness.

The second and equally valid meaning for the word “eis” is “because of“. This changes the entire meaning of the verse. The verse then teaches that each of us should repent and be baptized “because” we have forgiveness of sins.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Those who believe that baptism is essential for salvation (including the Mormon church) arbitrarily select the first meaning for the word “for“. There is nothing in the original Greek grammar or syntax that indicates that is the correct meaning. Therefore, the second meaning is equally valid. In fact, there are many examples in the New Testament that demonstrate the second meaning of the word “eis“.

For example, in Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist says

I baptize you with water for repentance.

Does this mean that he is baptizing them so that they will repent, or because they had repented? It is obvious that the second meaning is the correct interpretation.

Another example from Matthew 12:41 says:

they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.

Does this mean that they repented so that Jonah would preach, or because Jonah had preached? The answer is obviously because Jonah had preached.

How about a modern example?

We’ve all seen posters that say “Wanted for Murder!” Do these posters indicate that they are looking for the individual so that he (or she) will commit murder? Or is it better to say that they are looking for the individual on the poster because he (or she) has committed murder? Obviously, the second meaning is the understood interpretation.

In the examples we’ve seen, the interpretation seems pretty obvious and straightforward, but in Acts 2:38, the meaning of the word “for” is not as obvious. How then do we determine the real meaning? Which definition should we give it? Is it “so that” or “because”?

Rather than arbitrarily picking the meaning, as those who subscribe to baptismal regeneration do, good Bible study technique tells us that the meaning of a passage is always determined by the context. If the immediate context doesn’t help in determining the meaning of the verse, then the broader context should be used to make the determination.

In other words, if the meaning of the passage is unclear or in doubt, we should interpret its meaning in the light of passages that are clear and not in doubt.

With that in mind let’s analyze Acts 2:38. There is nothing in the immediate context of the verse that tells us which meaning we should ascribe to the word “for“. However, if we look at the broader context, we do get some help.

In Acts 3:19, Peter gives another invitation to salvation. In this invitation he says,

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord”.

In this sermon, Peter makes no mention of baptism. Forgiveness of sins is dependent only on turning to God. If Peter does not require baptism for salvation in Acts 3:19, then he must not require it in Acts 2:38 either. Otherwise, we would have a contradiction of Scripture, which would be a clear indication of interpretive error.

In Acts 10, Peter is sharing with some Gentiles how a person is saved. In this sermon Peter says:

“that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

In Acts 13, Paul is preaching about Christ. He says in verses 38-39,

Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Also, in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer directly asks Paul,

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Paul and Silas replied,

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.

All of these verses demonstrate that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. If baptism were indeed required for salvation, as those who hold to baptismal regeneration attest, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned in each of these examples?

Therefore, this indicates that the better interpretation of Acts 2:38 is “Repent and be baptized because you have forgiveness of sins.”

A List of Relevant Posts Regarding Baptism

 

As I’ve demonstrated in many of my other blog posts on this topic (see links to posts above), this interpretation not only fits our understanding of the meaning of baptism, but it fits perfectly with other passages that speak to how a person is saved and when and how a person receives the Holy Spirit.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The word “for” is a preposition that can indicate causality (in order that) or result (because of). What are some examples you can think of where the word “for” is used in each way?

If the word “for” can have either meaning, why do you think some groups like the Mormons and the Church of Christ insist on their interpretation? What might be some possible motivations?

If you believe that this verse does indeed teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, how do you explain the omission of baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation in all of the other documented gospel sermons in the New Testament?

If baptism ISN’T necessary for salvation as the author of this blog suggests, then what is its purpose? Why do we see it practiced in the New Testament?

 

Photo by BBC Creative on Unsplash

Posted on

Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?

2 Thessalonians 2

1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-13, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Not long ago, I was engaged in an online conversation with a Mormon who was explaining the necessity and legitimacy of the Mormon church.

You can read about the larger context that prompted this discussion in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?”

If you’re not familiar with Mormonism, you should know that it is not just another of the many Christian denominations that exist. It is something entirely different from the traditional Christianity that is represented by the many mainline Christian denominations and traditions.

Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who, according to his testimony, was confused by the many different Christian denominations in place at the time. He sought to determine which one was right so he could know which one he should follow.

Joseph Smith claims that he received a revelation directly from God the Father and Jesus, in which he was told that NONE of the denominations were correct and that he should not follow any of them.

Supposedly, Joseph Smith was later directed by an angel to some buried golden plates, which were subsequently translated into “The Book of Mormon”.  Not long after, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) was formed as the re-establishment of the true church that had allegedly been lost ever since the original apostles died off.

Interestingly, Mormonism today seeks to be known as “Christian” even though all of the Christian denominations of today were apparently labeled by Jesus himself as wrong.

Naturally, most Christians today do not think that they’re wrong, nor do they believe that they have fallen off the path, as Joseph Smith maintains that Jesus told him.

Hence, there is genuine debate regarding the origins of Mormonism and the truthfulness of its claims.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

A key argument that Mormons make to support their claim that Jesus visited Joseph Smith is the assertion that the original New Testament church fell into apostasy and the original church teachings and church authority were lost….for nearly 1800 years!

This passage in 2 Thessalonians is often used as one proof text to assert that Paul himself predicted that the church would fall into apostasy.

If the church indeed fell into apostasy and it can be demonstrated that even the apostles knew this would happen, then the idea that Jesus would appear at some point to someone to re-establish the true church seems at least plausible, if not inevitable.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of problems with the Mormon teaching on this passage as it relates to their view of a universal and cataclysmic apostasy of the church.

First of all, how does one reconcile the Mormon view that the church fell into apostasy and was lost with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16, in which he said that he would establish his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Jesus taught that nothing could ultimately eliminate his church. Yet Mormons teach that the gates of hell could prevail against Christ’s church and indeed DID prevail….for nearly 1800 years!

Secondly, if the church DID fall into apostasy and was completely lost (which we assert is not possible according to Jesus), why would Jesus wait 1800 years to re-establish His church? That’s an awfully long time with a lot of lost people who ultimately had no hope, given the complete absence of the church.

Third, Mormons make the interpretive error of eisegesis (reading their preferred interpretation into the text) when they assume that passages which warn of false teachers and ideologies are evidence of a universal apostasy in which the church would be lost. While Jesus and the apostles often warned of false teachers and frequently pointed to our sinful tendencies to pursue worldly desires at the expense of following Christ and obeying His Great Commission, there are NO passages where Jesus or any of his apostles predict that the universal church and its teachings would be completely lost.

Finally, this passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 is offered up as one of several primary passages that speak to this alleged apostasy. According to Mormon teaching, Jesus, Paul and others all KNEW that the church would fall into apostasy and spoke openly about it.

The problem for Mormons is that this passage says nothing about the church being lost, nor does it even hint that there would be a universal apostasy shortly after the apostles left the scene. In short, this passage doesn’t teach what Mormons say it teaches.

It’s clear from the very first verse of this chapter that Paul is speaking about the 2nd coming of Christ. Paul had taught the Thessalonians about this subject on many occasions, as he states in verse 5.

The Thessalonians were confused about the timing of the 2nd coming and were anxious because of false reports coming from would-be prophets and random itinerant preachers who claimed that the day of the Lord had already occurred.

The Thessalonians were worried that perhaps they had missed the big day and had been left behind. Paul assures them that the “day of the Lord”, which refers to the 2nd coming of Christ, had NOT happened yet and would not happen until certain visible and identifiable events had taken place.

Paul lists these events, including the “man of lawlessness” entering the temple and calling himself god.

This event clearly has not happened yet and when it does happen, it will not lead to an apostasy of the church as Mormons claim, but it will lead to the 2nd coming of Christ as is clear from verse 1.

Since it’s clear from the text that the events Paul is talking about are STILL future events, this passage cannot be legitimately offered up as evidence that the church was lost shortly after the apostles died off and therefore needed to be restored nearly 1800 years later.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the church of the New Testament was ever lost. Sure, there have been many within the church who have been led to follow a path of false teachings. That has always been the case. Even in the time of the apostles we see that there were many false teachers and many false teachings. We even see devout disciples who are led astray. But none of this proves that the church as a whole was fully and fundamentally lost.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the New Testament church’s teachings and structure resembled anything remotely mirroring the current Mormon church.

The New Testament documents are fairly well preserved and we can trace the traditions and the teachings of not only the apostles but the early church fathers. Historically, we can trace theological heresies as well as denominational splinter groups. We can compare all of it with the teachings of the New Testament to determine what is accurate and what is not.

Mormonism wants you to believe that Jesus told Joseph Smith that all the Christian denominations were wrong and that Mormonism is right.

The problem is that we cannot verify that Joseph Smith ever had a real encounter with Jesus, but we can evaluate Mormon teachings to those of Jesus and the New Testament apostles. By that metric, Mormonism fails because it teaches a gospel message that is in stark contrast to that which we know was taught by Jesus and his disciples.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Mormons claim that this passage teaches a universal apostasy of the church shortly after the apostles died off. Based on the plain reading of the text, do you agree that this is what Paul is teaching? Why or why not?

Mormons say that church authority and structure were lost when the church fell into apostasy. Yet Jesus taught that the gates of hell could not prevail against His church. How does one ultimately determine which view is correct? What standards or protocols do you think are needed to evaluate the veracity of each sides’ claims?

We have a record of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of many of His disciples. We call this the New Testament. Do you think the New Testament has been accurately preserved? In other words, do you believe that the New Testament is an accurate reflection of the account of Jesus’ life and ministry as well as an accurate account of the New Testament church and its teachings? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

If the church did fall into apostasy and was completely lost as Mormons claim, when and where did the “man of lawlessness” event take place? To what is Paul referring to?

Paul says that “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work”? What is Paul referring to? What does that mean? Paul also says that “the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.” Who do you think is the one who now holds back the secret power of lawlessness?

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

What is Baptism?

Romans 6

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

This is the question I posed in a recent post of the same title.

My prompt for delving into this topic was a recent online conversation I had with a Mormon, who, in making his case for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Mormons teach that a great apostasy occurred shortly after the apostles died and the authoritative line for administering baptisms was lost….for nearly 1800 years! (I’ll address this theological error in a different post.) But fortunately, according to Mormonism, Jesus supposedly restored the priestly line and authority for baptisms through Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.

I argued in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” that those who hold to this view, that baptism is necessary for salvation, often have an inaccurate understanding of what baptism is.

Many have an understanding of baptism that is informed only by their own religious experience. Hence, they think that any time the word appears in the Bible, it must be referring to the act of immersing someone in water for some efficacious religious purpose, i.e. cleansing of their sins and completing the salvation process.

But the meaning of the word “baptism” is broader than our own religious experience dictates and is often used in the Bible in ways that have nothing to do with any kind of immersive water experience.

So what is baptism exactly?

This passage in Romans is one of the clearest in terms of helping us understand exactly what baptism is and how it was understood by the apostles.

Specifically, there are two parallel statements that give clarification regarding what baptism is.

Verse 3 says, “don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

But verse 5 says, “If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Clearly, these two parallel verses demonstrate that to be “baptized into Christ and his death” is to be “united with Christ and His death.”

Hence, baptism is union with Christ.

This fits exactly with the broader biblical meaning of the word “baptize” which is identification. 

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Paul is saying that when one identifies with Christ, they are identified with His death. This is exactly what the gospel teaches. When a person receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they experience a change in identity. Instead of being a person who is alienated and separated from God, the new believer enters into a union with Christ that is characterized by a new family relationship – they are now a child of God – an adopted son or daughter.

This new identity takes place at the moment a person believes in Jesus. They receive forgiveness precisely because they are united with Jesus in His death. Simply put, when a person receives Jesus, they are indicating that they want Jesus’ death to pay for their sins instead of having to pay the penalty for their sins on their own, which leads to judgment and eternal death.

Jesus’ death now counts for the believer. His death pays for all their sins and as a result, they experience complete and total forgiveness.

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation) might argue that this new identity doesn’t happen until a person is baptized with water by immersion.

But this contradicts what Scripture teaches, which is that a person is justified by faith alone and that believers receive the Holy Spirit (the sign that we are now members of God’s family) at the moment of belief, not at the moment of being baptized.

Furthermore, if the broader understanding of baptism is one of identification, then it makes sense that the purpose of water baptism is not to complete some salvation formula but is simply a way of identifying to the world in a physical way (being immersed in water) to a spiritual reality that has already taken place. The spiritual reality is that the person, based on their belief and trust in Jesus, now identifies with Jesus and Jesus’ death and is now a member of God’s family.

So what is baptism?

Baptism is a union with Jesus that takes place when we put our faith in Him and His death. At the very moment we do that, we become united with Jesus AND we become united with His death. Being united with His death means that His death now pays for my sins, which means I can experience forgiveness and I can escape the punishment I deserve for the sins I’ve committed.

This union with Christ means that I have a new identity – I’m a child of God!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What was your experience with baptism growing up? Were you baptized? If so, what meaning was attributed to this religious ceremony by your religious tradition?

What do you think it means to be united with Christ?

If you think baptism is a religious ceremony that completes the salvation process, what do you think was the reason and purpose for Jesus being baptized? (See my post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”)

If baptism was necessary for salvation, how do you explain Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, who was never baptized, but was promised by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day?

 

Photo by Logan Gutierrez on Unsplash

Posted on

What is the Rapture?

1 Thessalonians 4

13And now, brothers and sisters, I want you to know what will happen to the Christians who have died so you will not be full of sorrow like people who have no hope. 14For since we believe that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we also believe that when Jesus comes, God will bring back with Jesus all the Christians who have died.

15I can tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will not rise to meet him ahead of those who are in their graves. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the call of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, all the Christians who have died will rise from their graves. 17Then, together with them, we who are still alive and remain on the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and remain with him forever. 18So comfort and encourage each other with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

You may have heard Christians talk about “the Rapture” and asked yourself, “what is that?”

The rapture is a biblical end times event that was popularized in the mid-to-late 20th century through books such as Hal Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth” and the “Left Behind” book series from authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

While most evangelical Christians embrace the doctrine of Jesus’ second coming, that Jesus will appear at the end of time to judge the world, eradicate evil and reign over creation forever, not all Christians hold to the doctrine known as “the rapture”, which is considered an event that is separate from and preceding to the second coming of Christ.

For those who do hold to a “rapture” as a distinct event from the second coming, this passage in 1 Thessalonians is a primary passage in support of their view.

In this passage, Paul is seeking to console the Thessalonians who are grieved that many of their loved ones have passed. Paul is correcting a misunderstanding these young believers had concerning what happens to believers after they have passed.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

The Thessalonians apparently had mistakenly believed that because their loved ones were in the grave, they would miss out on “the rapture”.

What exactly is the rapture?

“The rapture” is a doctrine that says Jesus will appear unexpectedly to take believers from this earth so that they might be with Him for eternity.

The word rapture comes from the Latin word “rapturo” which comes from verse 17 where Paul says that when Jesus returns, believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the clouds and will remain with Him forever. The Latin word for “caught up” is rapturo.

So the rapture is that moment when believers will be “caught up” with Jesus upon His return.

Paul tells these Thessalonian believers that those who have already died and are in the grave will be raised up first to meet Jesus and then those who are alive will be “caught up” with them.

So the order of events, according to this passage from Paul, is as follows:

    • Jesus will come back at some point. The exact timing of His return is not known so believers are exhorted to always be ready and to not be caught off guard
    • When Jesus returns, all those who have died will be resurrected and will meet Jesus in the clouds
    • Those believers who are alive on earth when Jesus returns will also meet Jesus in the clouds AFTER those who have already died are raised

As has already been mentioned, not all Christians agree that what Paul is describing in this passage is a separate, distinct event from the second coming of Christ. There are valid arguments for each view – that the rapture is a separate event that precedes the second coming of Jesus, and that the rapture is simply a different description of the second coming of Christ.

Regardless of the view one might take, we know for certain from this passage that Jesus WILL come back. When he does, those who have already died WILL be raised from the dead and WILL meet Jesus. Additionally, those who are alive when Jesus returns WILL also meet Jesus.

Paul says that this teaching is designed to give us hope, knowing that we, as believers, have a purpose and a destiny beyond this life. If there is no resurrection and no hope for life beyond our earthly physical existence, then, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, “we are to be pitied more than all men.” (See my blog post “Will Christians Really Experience a Bodily Resurrection?“)

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What do you think happens to people after they die? What has been. your belief about the afterlife?

Have you heard of the rapture? What have you been taught about the events leading up to the “end times”?

Do you think it matters what a person believes about the end times? Why do you think it’s important that we, as Christians, understand what the Bible teaches about the end times?

If the rapture really is an event that is distinct from and preceding to the second coming of Jesus, how does that change how you think about the Christian life and live out the Christian life?

 

Photo by Mahmoud Yahyaoui: https://www.pexels.com/photo/dramatic-sunlight-through-fluffy-clouds-29286046/

Posted on

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Luke 3

15Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and they were eager to know whether John might be the Messiah. 16John answered their questions by saying, “I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.” 18John used many such warnings as he announced the Good News to the people.

19John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done. 20So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others.

21One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” (Luke 3:15-22, NLT)

Acts 1

1Dear Theophilus:

In my first book I told you about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2until the day he ascended to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit. 3During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

4In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, “Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. 5John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Some Christians will whole-heartedly say “YES”, while many Catholics might also agree.

I’ve engaged with others over this question many times before but was recently re-introduced to this debate from an unexpected source.

You may recall that around the beginning of June (2026) there was some controversy surrounding the government and the Mormon church. I’ve shared some details about that in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?” but the summary is that the Department of Defense, in an effort to simplify the job of military chaplains, decided to reduce the number of codes that identify the different religious affiliations that troop members might align with from over 200 down to about 30.

These codes included a number of different “Christian” affiliations, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian”. However, when identifying the Mormon church, the code was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint”.

This had a number of Mormons objecting that the government did not identify the Mormon church as a subset of  Christianity.

In the ensuing online debate, I ended up engaging with a Mormon who was attempting to explain the legitimacy of the Mormon church to those who were suggesting that Mormons aren’t Christians.

One of the points this person made was that the Mormon church had re-established the priesthood, which Mormonism claims had been lost by the church for nearly 1800 years, and that this “restored” priesthood now allowed for legitimate baptisms. This is important, according to Mormons, because since baptism is necessary for salvation (in their view), the church needs a legitimate priesthood in order to administer baptisms and thus “save” people.

There’s a lot of Mormon theology that could be debated here but for this post, I want to look strictly at the assertion this Mormon made that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As luck would have it, that next day, two of the chapters in my daily Bible reading were the two chapters listed above, both of which talk about baptism.

An exhaustive discussion of whether baptism is necessary for salvation would likely take more room to unpack than just this blog post but these two passages do give us some insight into the issue.

First of all, if water baptism is necessary for salvation, one has to wonder why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be saved?

Clearly, Jesus didn’t need to be saved so there must be a different reason for His baptism. This alone tells us that baptism is not always associated with salvation. I wrote about this issue in my blog post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”

A second observation from these passages is the fact that there are clearly different kinds of baptism mentioned.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Note that John the Baptist himself said that he baptized with water but someone would come after Him (Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. John makes a point to say that this person who would come after him (Jesus) was greater than he was. This implies also that the baptism of Jesus was greater, better and more important than the baptism of John.

Jesus confirms this in the Acts passage when he reminds his disciples what they had been taught before, that John would baptize with water but He (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then told them that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place “in just a few days”.

It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus was referencing the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon these early believers and came to indwell them. It’s at this moment that the church was born.

So for the person who believes that water baptism is essential for salvation, the question they must ask is: why does Jesus emphasize His baptism of the Spirit over the water baptism that John the Baptist performed?

One thing is absolutely clear from these two passages: Jesus’ baptism is different from the baptism of John the Baptist. While John the Baptist baptized people with water, Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.

If we’re going to have any chance of resolving the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, we have to come to an understanding of what it means when Jesus said he would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

The problem that too many people experience when they’re faced with this issue is one of familiarity.

What I mean by that is that most people, when they hear the word “baptize”, immediately conjure up an image in their mind based on their own understanding of the word, which is primarily shaped by their own experience with baptism.

For most people, their only association with the word is that they’ve seen many people who have been baptized with water, either by sprinkling in the Catholic church and various Protestant traditions or by immersion in many evangelical traditions.

If your only exposure to the word “baptize” is seeing someone who has been baptized with water, then you naturally will assume that whenever you see the word, it must refer to being sprinkled or immersed with water.

But as these two texts above demonstrate, baptism is not always associated with water. Therefore, the idea that one must be sprinkled or immersed in water as a part of the salvation process is already in doubt. And since both John the Baptist and Jesus affirm that the baptism Jesus would bring was NOT water baptism, then there is virtually no reason to believe that being baptized with water is anything more than symbolism.

A more careful study of the word “baptize” reveals that this is exactly the case.

The more broad meaning of the word “baptize” is “to identify with.”

Hence, people who were baptized by John the Baptist were identifying with him. As a way to demonstrate publicly that they agreed with John’s preaching, they took the step to be baptized by him, thus identifying themselves with his core message of repentance. One might think of it as an initiation.

Jesus’ baptism is not one that is associated with water but the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit means that the person now identifies with the Holy Spirit and thus is now a member of God’s family.

The apostles were all first identified with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They were “baptized” by the Spirit and “initiated” into the body of Christ, the family of God.

The question for us is when is the believer first associated with the Holy Spirit? Is it at the moment of being baptized with water, as Mormons and some Protestants claim? If that is the case, then we can affirm that water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. Most notably, Paul, in Ephesians 1:13, says that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christian as a seal at the moment of belief, NOT at the moment of being immersed in water. I wrote about this aspect of the Holy Spirit in my blog post, “The Holy Spirit as a Seal.”

So then, if water baptism is not essential for savlation, what is the purpose? Why do it?

Like a lot of things in Scripture, water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

In Scripture, water is often a symbol of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, Jesus addresses the crowds and tells them that if anyone is thirsty, they should come to Him and drink and streams of living water would flow from within them. The text follows by explaining that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit.

So the act of being baptized with water is simply an act whereby the believer is attesting to the fact that they now identify with Jesus and are a part of His family. The qualifying characteristic of being a part of the family of Jesus is that you must have the Holy Spirit. The believer, in being baptized with water, is making a declaration of faith – that they now have placed their trust in Christ and as a result, they have received the promised Holy Spirit and have been placed into the family of God.

So let’s circle back to our original question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” The answer is that it depends on what you’re referring to when you talk about baptism.

If you are asking whether a person needs to be baptized with water in order to be saved, the answer from Scripture is clearly NO.

But if you understand baptism to be an identification and union with the Holy Spirit, then the answer is YES, you absolutely must be SPIRITUALLY baptized in order to be saved, for one cannot be saved unless they become a member of the family of God and the prerequisite to becoming a member of the family of God IS receiving the Holy Spirit, which, according to Scripture, occurs the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What has been your experience with baptism? What comes to your mind when you hear the word “baptize”?

What do you think is the purpose of baptism? If you have been baptized, how did you interpret that experience in terms of its meaning?

Would you agree that Jesus’ baptism is greater than and more important than John’s baptism? 

If Jesus’ baptism is more important that John’s baptism, then they must be different in some way. What do you think are the differences between these two kinds of baptism?

If the purpose of water baptism is to save people, then why do you think Jesus was baptized by John? Clearly Jesus didn’t need to be saved.

 

Photo by Paul Ndayambaje: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-in-a-blue-dress-is-in-the-water-28181227/

Posted on

Should People Take the Mormon “Challenge”?

Galatians 1

6I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who in his love and mercy called you to share the eternal life he gives through Christ. You are already following a different way 7that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ.

8Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

10Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant. (Galatians 1:6-10, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, Mormonism has been a huge topic on social media the last few days. The main topic of discussion and debate has been centered around the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians.

For context, the Department of Defense recently posted a memo regarding new abbreviated codes to identify the many different religious backgrounds that might be represented among the troops.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the previous list of religious options was out of control, with over 200 different options. The goal was to simplify the number of codes and options, making it easier for chaplains to do their job of ministering to the troops.

The problem was that the new list had a number of different Christian denominations listed, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian” but the Mormon Church was not listed as Christian. Instead, it was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint.”

This set off a firestorm among many Mormon influencers and regular Mormon Joes who were offended that the U.S. government apparently didn’t consider Mormons to be Christian.

Chief among those speaking out online were Utah Senator Mike Lee (@basedMikeLee on X), who took every opportunity to post his thoughts and objections to this “egregious error” inflicted on Latter Day Saints.

This incident sparked a lot of online conversations about whether or not Mormons are Christians.

Mormons, of course, believe they ARE Christians, while evangelicals have argued that Mormons are NOT Christians because, despite the fact that Jesus Christ is in their name, they do not hold to the traditional Christian doctrinal views on Jesus, God, the Church, salvation, or the Scriptures.

The online discussion afforded many Mormons, including Senator Lee, the opportunity to inform and proselytize others regarding the Mormon faith.

In one of his posts, Senator Lee offered up what I’m calling the “Mormon challenge”:

This is the Mormon “trump” card so to speak. “Just read the Book of Mormon in it’s entirety”, they say, “and ask God humbly and with sincerity if it’s true.” This challenge is often offered as a gauntlet that is laid down for those who portend to be truth-seekers.

“What do you have to lose”, Mormons ask. The sentiment is, “Don’t be a chicken!”

Millions of Mormons attest that Mormonism is indeed true based on this challenge.

Should Christians accept this challenge?

The answer is a resounding NO.

There are two reasons why Christians should not take this challenge and neither of them have to do with being scared of the outcome.

The first reason you should not take this challenge is because it’s not falsifiable. The challenge is actually like the old “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, which means that the challenge is designed to “prove” Mormonism is true regardless of the results of your humble and sincere prayer.

Think about it: if you pray and you say that you felt nothing or you didn’t get any firm and obvious confirmation from your prayer, the Mormon can just say that you were obviously not sincere enough, or humble enough or something similar.

Yet if you say that you DID feel something, that emotional response, regardless of how small or incomprehensible, is offered as proof that Mormonism is true.

In other words, the challenge simply appeals to an emotional response as evidence of veracity.

This leads to the second reason one should NOT take this challenge, which is that it’s unbiblical.

Nowhere in Scripture are people encouraged to evaluate truth claims by appealing to an emotional response.

Instead, we are exhorted to test a message against the clear revelation that has already been given by God.

Acts 17 is a good example of this. I have written about this passage in another blog post, “Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament” in which the Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s message against the Scriptures.

A second clear example of testing a message is in the Galatians passage listed above, in which Paul tells his audience that any “gospel” message that is not in alignment or in agreement with the gospel message he had already preached to them was to be rejected. Paul tells the Galatians that the person giving this false message is to be cursed.

We know exactly what the message was that Paul originally preached to the Galatians because he writes his letter to the Galatians to reinforce the original message and to correct their subsequent misunderstanding brought about by false teachers. The gospel message Paul preached was a message of justification by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works.

Since we already know that the Mormon message is different than Paul’s message on many different levels doctrinally, there is no need to “pray on it.” In fact, reading the Book of Mormon and praying on it could be considered disobedience to Paul’s admonition to outright reject so-called gospel messages that are different from what he taught the Galatians.

The debate about whether Mormons are Christian or not, while interesting, is in many ways irrelevant. The truth is that anyone can identify themselves as a Christian. Yet, it’s not as important what you call yourself as what you believe.

Mormons say they are Christians because they follow Jesus Christ. But so do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Liberal Christians and even Progressive Christians. Even Muslims will tell you that they respect and revere Jesus as a prophet.

All these groups, along with Latter Day Saints, have wildly different theological views on God, Jesus, salvation and the nature of the church, and yet, they all consider themselves “Christian”.

Are they Christian? The only way we can really know is to evaluate their beliefs in relation to what the Bible teaches.

With that in mind, I propose an alternate challenge to those who consider themselves Mormons…a challenge that is actually biblical. The challenge is to read the Bible cover to cover. Then compare the teachings of Mormonism with the teachings of the Bible, and specifically, compare the Mormon message with the gospel message taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Then tell me – does Mormonism line up with the already revealed and accepted teachings of Jesus and the apostles?

So Mike Lee (and other Mormons)….will you accept the challenge?

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your definition of a Christian? According to the Bible and the gospel, how does one become a Christian?

What was the essence of the salvation message taught by Jesus and His disciples? What is the essence of the Mormon message regarding how a person is saved?

What is the traditional Christian teaching on the nature of Jesus? How do Mormons view the nature of Jesus? Are these two views the same? How do they differ?

Do you think it matters what a person believes about Jesus in order to be saved? Or is it simply enough to say you believe in Jesus? 

 

photo by Dave Lowe

Posted on

Can Christians Pray Directly to Jesus or Only God the Father?

Acts 7

51“You stubborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit? But your ancestors did, and so do you! 52Name one prophet your ancestors didn’t persecute! They even killed the ones who predicted the coming of the Righteous One—the Messiah whom you betrayed and murdered. 53You deliberately disobeyed God’s law, though you received it from the hands of angels. ”

54The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists in rage. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 56And he told them, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!”

57Then they put their hands over their ears, and drowning out his voice with their shouts, they rushed at him. 58They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. The official witnesses took off their coats and laid them at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59And as they stoned him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60And he fell to his knees, shouting, “Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!” And with that, he died. (Acts 7:51-60, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Last week on X (formerly Twitter), I saw an exchange that made me think. A pastor with a very large following was calling out a well-known politician who claims to be a Christian for the way he prayed.

Attached to the post was a screenshot of the text of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6, along with the following admonition:

Someone should tell (name of politician) that Christians don’t pray to Jesus. We pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus.

My first thought was disappointment at the realization that we now appear to have an online Prayer Police force that is monitoring our actions over the internet.

My second thought was, “Wait, I pray to Jesus all the time. Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Have I been participating in a doctrinally dubious practice?”

It’s a valid question. How exactly are we to pray? Is there a right and wrong format? What are God’s expectations of us as we seek to engage with Him in the practice of prayer?

I’ve been a Christian for a looooong time and I’ve honestly never thought that a person could NOT pray directly to Jesus. After all, when I first heard the gospel as a young boy, I was told that Jesus was standing at the door of my heart and he was knocking (Revelation 3:20). If I was listening to his voice and if I opened the door, he would come into my life! In short, if I responded to Jesus, IN PRAYER, and invited him in, I would become a Christian and receive the gift of eternal life.

I’ve heard many prayers over the years where Jesus was addressed directly and I’ve never, even once, seen or heard someone be corrected for directing their prayers to Jesus, if this is indeed a wrong practice.

I suppose that’s why this post on X, from a pastor with a large following, and a PhD no less, seemed to be coming out of left field.

Disregarding the tone and posture of the tweet, which came off as more sanctimonious rebuke than loving correction, I found myself asking the question, “is he correct?”

The disciples had asked Jesus to teach them to pray. Jesus responded by telling them:

9“Pray, then, in this way:

‘Our Father who is in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

10‘Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

11‘Give us this day our daily bread.

12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]’ (Matthew 6:9-13, NASB)

I decided to survey the prayers in the New Testament that I was aware of, mostly from the book of Acts.

What I found is that most of the prayers ARE directed to God the Father and NOT Jesus, EXCEPT this one example that we find from Stephen in our passage today.

We first meet Stephen in Acts 6 when he is selected, along with six other men, for the special task of meeting a critical need in the early church. These seven men were the first deacons of the church. The text says that Stephen was a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit. He was not a man of marginal commitment or questionable devotion. He walked with God.

By the end of chapter 6, Stephen is no longer serving as an administrator in the church’s food distribution program, but instead, he is having a major impact as an evangelistic preacher. Stephen’s influence had increased significantly and he was now a major leader in the early church movement.

One day, Stephen gets into a debate with some Jews and the text says that:

None of them was able to stand against the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke. (Acts 6:10, NLT)

They couldn’t defeat his arguments so they found some people to lie about him and he was arrested by the religious rulers and brought before the high council. The Council leaders ask Stephen to respond to the charges that had been brought against him. His response is recorded in Acts 7, which is a lengthy discourse on the history of the Jewish people, including their long-standing pattern of rebelling against God and resisting God’s appointed messengers (His prophets).

For brevity, I haven’t included the full text of that response (Acts 7 in its entirety), but it’s worth the read. For our purposes, I’ve included the relevant part at the end of Acts 7 where Stephen shifts his response from explaining the history of the nation of Israel to his indictment on its leaders for their pride and rebellion.

You can see that the Council leaders and its members don’t take too kindly to Stephen’s accusation and the result is that they dragged Stephen out of the city and stoned him.

What is interesting about this text is that Stephen, as he is being stoned, looks up toward heaven and he prays!

What does he pray?

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59)

Stephen, a man who the text says was filled with the Spirit, prayed to Jesus, not the Father.

To me, this provided indisputable proof that it must be ok to direct our prayers to Jesus and not God the Father only.

So I responded to the pastor’s post on X by saying that praying to Jesus must be ok because we have an example in the New Testament with Stephen praying directly to Jesus.

The pastor replied to my response, doubling down by saying:

That was descriptive, not prescriptive.

What does that mean?

He’s actually correct. What that means is that the book of Acts is historical narrative, not didactic teaching. That means that Luke (the author of Acts) was simply recording things that happened. Just because he recorded an event does not mean that what is recorded is supposed to be the normal pattern for all believers.

But Jesus’ words in Matthew 6 are direct teaching. He is instructing us in what to do and how to do it.

So what this pastor was saying in his reply is that just because Stephen is recorded as praying to Jesus doesn’t mean we are supposed to, especially since Jesus’ prayer instruction shows the prayer addressing “our Father”.

So yes, it’s true. Jesus’ teaching is prescriptive, explaining to his disciples how we should pray. And the example of Stephen is descriptive. It’s part of a larger narrative that just describes an event. It’s not part of a passage that is teaching us how to pray.

Does that mean that the pastor’s assertion that we are only to pray to God the Father is correct? Is that the end of the discussion?

Not exactly.

While Jesus teaches the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 (and Luke 11), his teaching is not an exhaustive discourse on the subject of prayer. In other words, even though Jesus gives some teaching on prayer in these passages, what he says is not ALL there is to know and learn about prayer.

To make a determination of whether it’s ok to pray to Jesus directly, consider the following:

    • Jesus tells his disciples to pray “in this way”, and then he shares the Lord’s prayer. Does this mean that ALL prayers must repeat these words exactly? If so, why do we never see this exact prayer repeated in the New Testament?
    • Jesus gives his disciples a model, or example of how to pray, which includes addressing “our Father”. Does this mean that a person can never pray to Jesus? What about the Holy Spirit? Can you call on the Holy Spirit?
    • If we are not allowed to pray to Jesus, how are we supposed to respond to Him if he is at the door of our heart knocking? How exactly do we invite Him in?
    • If Jesus promises to come in and dine with us and have fellowship with us, how exactly do we have fellowship with someone we are not supposed to talk (pray) to directly?
    • It’s clear that Jesus is our High priest. The role of a priest is a mediator. Jesus is the mediator between us and holy God. It’s because of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the cross that we are able to boldly approach the throne of grace and enter the presence of God the Father. Are we really supposed to believe that Jesus is the mediator between man and God but we are not allowed to talk to him directly?

The whole premise seems a bit absurd. Based on all of the relevant data, it seems clear that while Jesus does instruct his followers to pray to God the Father, there is never a prohibition for believers to address Jesus directly.

It seems clear that because Jesus is our mediator and he is the one knocking at the door of our heart, wanting to come into our lives, that we CAN address him directly.

Furthermore, we have a documented case where a godly, Spirit-filled leader of the early church  (Stephen) addresses Jesus directly. There is no indication, anywhere in scripture, that this is somehow wrong.

One last item is worth mentioning. In the final words of the New Testament, John, in the book of Revelation, pens these words:

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20, NLT)

If the apostle John finds that it’s ok to pray to Jesus, inviting him to “come”, then I’d say that it’s ok for any of us to address our prayers to Jesus as well.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What would your response have been to this pastor who posted on X? How would you have either affirmed his position or argued against it?

What has been your pattern in prayer? Do you think it’s ok to pray directly to Jesus or should Christians pray ONLY to God the Father? What is the reasoning for your answer?

How have you used the Lord’s Prayer in your walk with Christ? Do you believe that Jesus taught that the Lord’s prayer was THE way to pray – that it is the ONLY pattern for praying? 

What do you think it means that Jesus is our high priest? What is the role of a priest? How do we interact with a priest or mediator?

 

Photo by Brian Lundquist on Unsplash

Posted on

Will Christians Really Experience a Bodily Resurrection?

1 Corinthians 15

12But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.

20But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. (1 Corinthians 15:12-20, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the cornerstone doctrines that sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

The resurrection is vitally important because without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. What we think of as Christianity just becomes another religion where its followers seek to adhere to the advice and admonitions of a self-proclaimed guru.

Quite simply, the resurrection proves that Jesus is God, which is significant because only God could provide complete atonement for the sins of mankind. if you want to understand the theological ramifications of the resurrection, I explain more of the logical reasoning behind this idea in my post “He is Risen…Why Does it Matter?”

In this section of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul is responding to an apparent misunderstanding about the resurrection that was circulating within the church.

It seems that many in the church could not wrap their mind around the idea that they would experience a bodily resurrection. This aligns with prevalent Greek understanding at that time, in which the body was seen as a prison or a shell for the soul. Greek philosophy had a concept of the immortality of the soul but not so much for the body.

In this passage, Paul addresses the faulty thinking that denied a future bodily resurrection. His argument is as follows:

    • If there is no such thing as a resurrection, then obviously, Christ was not resurrected (verse 13)
    • If Christ hasn’t been raised (resurrected) then our preaching is in vain (wasted) and as a result, your faith is in vain because it is predicated on the message we preached (verse 14)
    • In addition, we are then false witnesses because we preached the resurrection of Jesus whom God did not raise (verse 15)
    • Hence, If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins; they have not been paid for (verse 17)
    • Furthermore, those who have died then have perished (verse 18)
    • Therefore, if the hope of Christ is for this life only, we should be pitied (verse 19)

Paul then ends the argument in verse 20, saying:

But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. [emphasis added]

In short, without a resurrection, there can be no salvation and as a result, this life is all there is. That makes life ultimately meaningless and Christianity is just a nihilistic ideology with lipstick.

The resurrection is not only the cornerstone of the Christian faith, proving that Jesus is God and therefore His death completely atones for the sins of mankind, but the resurrection also signifies that those who believe in Christ will ALSO experience a bodily resurrection, just as Jesus did.

So if you like your body, the good news is that you will have an even better model in eternity. And if you DON’T like your body for whatever reason, you can rest assured that your resurrected body will be an upgrade, free from defects, flaws and imperfections.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What has been your concept of life after death? In other words, what do you imagine heaven to be like for you and others who are there?

How does the concept of having a resurrected body align or contradict your thinking about heaven and eternal life?

How confident are you in the resurrection of Jesus? What are some reasons that cause you to doubt whether it is actually true?

If Jesus was not resurrected, how do you explain the crucifixion? What was it’s purpose? What did it accomplish?

 

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash