This is a production
of World Video Bible School. To God be the glory! In our previous lesson,
we discussed the basics of baptism. And, friends, in truth, baptism is one
of the simplest subjects in all of the Bible. The command itself is
very easy to understand. “He who believes and is baptized
will be saved,” Mark 16:16. A person certainly doesn’t need an
advanced degree to understand that. And the purpose of baptism
is explained in equally simple terms. 1 Peter 3:20,
“Baptism does now also save us.” And lest anyone be confused about it, the Lord illustrates baptism
for us in word pictures. In Acts 8:38, “And both Philip and the eunuch
went down into the water, and he baptized him.” Friends, the truth of the matter is baptism
is not a complicated or confusing subject. Somebody might ask, “Why, then,
are so many people confused about it? Why do religious people
so vehemently argue the point?” Friends, the answer is: “The Devil.” The Devil is working hard to make sure that
people are confused about this point. Because think about it.
Baptism is the door to the church. Baptism is the point at which a person
contacts the cleansing blood of Jesus. Baptism is that final act of obedience that
moves a man from the category of the lost to the category of the saved. Of course the Devil doesn’t want
people to understand this! Friends, a person does not study the Bible
without some sort of outside interference and conclude that baptism is not necessary. A person does not read, “He who believes
and is baptized will be saved,” and conclude, “Ah, I see, that baptism is not necessary.”
That’s not the way it works. What I want to do in this lesson is to look
at some of the most common arguments that are made in an effort to refute baptism and I want
us to answer these very simply from the Bible. We’re going to cover eight arguments. Argument number one is what
I call the '‘Eis’ Argument.' Not 'a-c-e', but the transliterated 'e-i-s.' The Greek form is epsilon-iota-sigma
because, of course, the New Testament was
originally written in Greek. This argument comes from Acts 2:38,
where the Bible says, “Repent and let every one of you be baptized
in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.” Very clearly this passage teaches
that baptism is for the remission of sins. Sin causes a man to be lost--Romans 6:23. And this verse teaches to have your
sins remitted--or removed--you must be baptized. Friends, it is a powerful verse
to show the necessity of baptism. Well, if you're a person who doesn't believe
in the necessity of baptism, what are you going to do with this verse?
Well, I’ll tell you what some people do. Do you see the word ‘for’ in Acts 2:38?
It is the Greek word ‘eis.’ They will tell you that ‘eis’
doesn’t really mean ‘for.’ They will say that is a mistranslation. They will say that ‘eis’
really means ‘because of.’ “Repent and be baptized
because of the remission of your sins." And so, they’ll say that baptism is something you
do because your sins have already been forgiven. Now, how do you answer this argument?
Let me give you several answers to it. Number one: I want to suggest to you Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon answers this argument. If you will look up the Greek word
‘eis’ in Thayer's, you will find that this word means
‘into, unto, to, towards, for, among.’ Now that's Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
which is considered to be authoritative. It does not even offer ‘because of’ as
a possible definition for this word. And I think it’s worth noting that Thayer’s
is respected across the spectrum of Christendom. You can buy it any religious bookstore.
So number one, I'd go to Thayer's. Number two: I would point out
that if ‘eis’ in this verse did mean that baptism is ‘because of' the remission of sins,
then it would also mean that repentance is because of the remission of sins, because don’t forget these
two words--repent and baptized-- are joined by the conjunction ‘and.’ “Repent and be baptized
for the remission of sins.” Friends, I have never met anybody who
believes that we should repent because our sins have already been forgiven. They all acknowledge that
repentance must come first. Number three in answering this argument:
I would point out that the Greek word ‘eis’ appears more than 2,000
times in the New Testament, and it is never translated as ‘because of.’ In fact, let me show you another passage that
has almost the exact same wording-- "for the remission of sins." In Matthew 26:28 the Bible says that Jesus
shed His blood “for the remission of sins.” The Baptist scholar A.T. Robertson had no problem
understanding the word ‘eis’ in this passage. He clearly says that Jesus meant that his blood
‘for’--in order to achieve--the remission of sins. He says, however, when you come to
Acts 2:38, he says, this... He says, “This phrase is the subject
of endless controversy. One will decide the use here according as
he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.” And so, in Acts 2:38 rather than
relying on the grammar, he says, “Well, what the word means here
depends on your theology." He says your theology determines this,
not the grammar, which was inspired by God. Friends, that is not honest. Let's look at a second argument
that sometimes people try to make to refute the necessity of baptism.
I call this the 'Mark 16:16 argument.' I believe that Mark 16:16 is one of the most
powerful verses in the entire Bible to teach the necessity of baptism.
Mainly I think that because of its simplicity. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
It just doesn’t get any simpler than that. A man must “believe” and “be baptized”
before he can be saved. English grammar demands it.
Greek grammar demands it. Now, I don’t want to get into a deep study
of Greek grammar, but very briefly I want to share with you some Greek grammar rules. And if you understand these rules,
then this question about baptism in Mark 16:16 will forever be laid to rest. In this verse the word "believe"
and the word "baptized" are aorist participles. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction
that binds these two together. The leading verb in the sentence is
“will be saved.” Basic Greek grammar states that aorist
participle’s action occurs before the main verb, and in rare cases its action can occur
at the same time as the main verb. Now, since "believe" and “baptized” are
joined by a coordinating conjunction, and they are aorist participles,
they must take place before the leading verb which is “will be saved.” You say, "That sounds confusing." In very simple English grammatically speaking,
what it is saying is this: “saved” can’t happen until
“believe” and “baptized” have taken place. In other words, you can’t be saved first
and baptized later! Friends, this is as solid an
argument that has ever existed. And Greek experts testify to its validity
to include Machen, Summers, and Robertson. And again, A.T. Robertson doesn’t even believe
that baptism is necessary for salvation, but he still attests to the fact that the
Greek grammar here demands such. Now somebody says, “Well, what could a person
possibly do to deny this passage?” Well, here’s one thing that people do. Read the verse with me, “He who believes
and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe
will be condemned.” Now, here’s the argument that they make. They will say the second part of the
verse shows that baptism is not necessary because it only says that if a person does
not believe, he will be condemned. It doesn’t say that if he doesn’t believe
and is not baptized, that he'll be condemned. Friends, I'm not trying to be insulting,
but this is very a desperate argument because, number one, it does not
change the force of the grammar. It doesn't change what the verse says. The grammatical construction
still demands baptism. In fact, let me illustrate this another way. If I were to say, “If you come to my house,
and cut my grass I will give you $50, but if you don’t come to my house,
I will not give you $50.” Would anybody have any
trouble understanding that? Would anyone conclude from that statement
that all that's necessary to do to get $50 is to come to my house?
Nobody would think that. They would understand that you have to come
to my house and you have to cut the grass. Now they might say,
“Well, in the second part he says, 'If you don’t come to the house,
you don’t get the money.' He didn’t say, 'If you don’t cut the grass.'” You see, people understand that if you don’t
come to the house, you can’t cut the grass. The second requirement is
dependent upon the first requirement. And the same thing is true in Mark 16:16. If a person doesn’t believe,
he cannot be baptized. You don’t even have to state the second requirement
because it is dependent upon the first one. People understand this when you illustrate
in terms such as coming to the house and cutting the grass and getting paid. So, why do people get confused
when it comes to the subject of baptism? Friends, I believe it's because often times,
they have a presupposed idea that baptism is not necessary. Because there is nothing in this verse that would
lead you to believe that baptism is not required. Here's a third argument I want us to consider. I'm calling this one the
'Ancient Manuscript Argument.' This is another argument to try
to get around the force of Mark 16:16. People will argue that Mark 16:16 does not
belong in the Bible in the first place. They will say that Mark 16:9-20
should not be in the Bible. And to prove this, they will point to some
of the oldest manuscripts and they will say that these old manuscripts
do not even contain this section of scripture. In fact, the New International Version--the NIV--
has a footnote that says this, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” Well, when a person hears that, that sounds
impressive, until you hear the rest of the story. First, their statement that some of the most
reliable manuscripts do not include this section is a very prejudiced statement. You need to understand that we
do not have any of the original documents. We don't have the autographs. We don't have the book of Matthew
as written by Matthew. We don't have the letters written by Paul
that is in his own hand. All that we have today are copies. We have between
5,000 and 6,000 Greek manuscripts. And the presumption is, the older they are,
the more reliable they are supposed to be because they are closer to the original date.
Or again, that’s the supposition. But it's not necessarily a true supposition.
I want you to consider this. Maybe Paul wrote the book of Ephesians--
and we know that he did. But suppose that after he wrote this book,
immediately, someone at Ephesus sat down and made a copy of it,
but let's say they made a mistake. Let’s say that five or ten years later,
someone takes that original autograph that Paul wrote, and they copied it,
but they made no mistakes. Which one is more accurate?
The older one or the more recent one? Do you see the problem with this argument
that older is better? Secondly, the manuscripts that people are
referring to when they say, "The oldest manuscripts do not contain this..." They're referring to a total of two of manuscripts
that do not contain Mark 16:9-20. They are the Codex Sinaiticus--codex means 'book'--
and the Codex Vaticanus. These are the two Greek manuscripts that we
have--that are the old ones they are referring to-- that do not contain Mark 16:9-20. But we also have ancient versions and patristic
writers older than these two manuscripts who do refer to this passage of Scripture--
this section of Scripture. These two manuscripts are the ones
that the NIV is largely based on. But what is very interesting is that the Codex
Vaticanus leaves a blank space large enough for the missing verses--Mark 16:9-20. Scholars have speculated that this would indicate
that whoever was copying this knew there was a missing section but for some reason,
they did not have a copy of it and so they left a space for in this manuscript. Another thing that's very interesting is that
if you look at the top five oldest manuscripts-- the other three manuscripts which are very close
in the same age bracket as the two that we just mentioned, do include Mark 16:9-20. In fact, the vast majority of manuscripts
that we have do include these verses. There are just a few--the two we mentioned--
that omit it, but hundreds include it. Somebody says, “Well, the two oldest omit it,
and therefore, they are the most reliable. Therefore we should omit it.”
Is that reliable thinking? Interestingly, these two ancient manuscripts
that omit Mark 16:9-20 include some fake portions of Scripture. They include apocryphal books to include
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, as well as others. And so, if we’re going to conclude that
those two are the two that are right, because they are the oldest
and we should omit Mark 16:9-20, then we should also accept
the fake writings that they contain. These two manuscripts also omit John 21:25.
Should we also omit it? Interestingly, the NIV doesn’t make a footnote
about that particular passage. These two manuscripts--either one or both--
are missing Mark 1:1, Luke 6:1, Luke 22:43, 23:34, John 9:38, John 19:33-34, Ephesians 1:1, and
1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews 9:15 and the entire book of Revelation. And so, the point is we need
to base our conclusion on the majority of the evidence,
not on just two manuscripts. One more very important point:
The manuscripts-- the two manuscripts to which they are referring--
are the Greek manuscripts. But there are other documents
that are even older. One of the oldest that
we have is the old Syriac Translation. It dates back to the lifetimes
of early Christians who could and likely did know the apostle John personally.
And it does contain Mark 16:9-20. It’s also included in the Ethiopic,
the Egyptian, the Old Italic, the Sahidic, and Coptic translation,
all of which are older-- or as old as--the two Greek
manuscripts which omit it. You say, "All that's kind of confusing,
what you're saying. What’s the point?" Friends, the point is this: The evidence is there
that Mark 16:9-20 should be in your Bible. It belongs in your Bible. And besides that, this same Biblical principle
is taught in other passages as well. Here's a fourth argument
that is sometimes made by people to try to refute
the necessity of baptism. I'm calling this the
"Paul did not baptize argument." This argument comes from 1 Corinthians 1:14-17,
where Paul writes, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone
should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know
whether I baptized any other.” Now I want you to pay
special attention to this next part. “For Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach the gospel.” This argument is taken from
verse 17 where Paul says, “Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach.” And those trying to get around
the force of baptism, they will argue that Paul was teaching
that baptism is not part of the plan of salvation because he said that the
Lord did not send him to baptize. And they believe this
is a very strong argument. Friends, first, I want you to appreciate with me
that this passage cannot be teaching that baptism is not necessary
or else it would be contradicting the other clear passages
that we've already covered. Secondly, Paul himself taught that
baptism is necessary. He taught 1) That baptism puts a person into
the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13); 2) Baptism puts a person into Christ
(Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27); 3) He taught that baptism is when a person is
buried with Christ (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12); 4) He taught that baptism is when a person is
united with Christ (Romans 6:5); 5) He taught that baptism is when a person’s
sins are forgiven (Romans 6:7, Colossians 2:13). Thirdly, in the very context of 1 Corinthians 1,
Paul makes it clear that baptism is necessary. I want you to notice that he says two things
are necessary if a person is going to belong to Paul, or to Apollos,
or to Cephas, or to Christ. 1) He says that that person
must be crucified for you. Now listen to this one. 2) He says you must be
baptized in the name of that person. That's very key. This very context teaches that baptism is
necessary if you want to belong to Christ. Fourth, Paul said he was not sent to baptize,
and yet, he had baptized people. So was he in violation of what he
was supposed to be doing? Of course not. Remember, we've
got to keep this in context. The context of 1 Corinthians 1 is that fact
that there was division in the church. Some people were holding
to men instead of Christ. And in light of that, Paul says,
“I’m glad that I have not personally baptized many of you or else you
would be trying to hold to me. This would have aggravated the problem.” When he said that he was not sent to baptize,
he did not mean he shouldn’t do it, because sometimes he did it. What he meant was this was not
his primary work as an apostle. Any Christian can to the baptizing. That wasn’t the special work
of an apostle of Jesus Christ. Here's a fifth argument. I'm calling this one
"The thief on the cross argument." This is maybe the most
common argument that is made against the necessity of
baptism for salvation. The argument that people make is very simple. It says this: “The thief on the cross was
not baptized, and yet, he was saved, and so therefore, I do not have
to be baptized in order to be saved.” We could spend an entire lesson
on this point alone, and in fact, we have an entire lesson specifically dealing
with the thief on the cross. But for now, let’s very briefly
answer this argument. When somebody says, “The thief on the cross
wasn’t baptized, and he was saved, so I don’t have to be baptized either,”
first, I would point out to that person that the thief on cross
might have been baptized. We don't know that. In Luke 23:42, the thief said to Jesus, "Lord,
remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Now that tells me the thief
knew something about the kingdom. That might mean that the thief had been baptized
under the baptism of John the Baptist. You remember in Matthew 3,
John was the preaching the kingdom and he was baptizing
people in the Jordan River. And so since the thief knew about the kingdom,
maybe he was baptized under John’s baptism. Secondly, when a person says that he wants
to be saved like the thief on the cross, I would point out that there are several very
key things that are applicable to us today, that had not yet taken place
when Jesus granted the thief salvation. 1) Christ had not yet died. That being the case, the New Testament that we
live under today had not yet gone into effect. Hebrews 9:16, “For where
there is a testament, there must also of necessity be
the death of the testator.” Since Christ had not died,
New Testament baptism was not yet in effect. 2) Christ had not yet been buried. Romans 6:4 says that we today,
who live under the Christian age, we are buried with Christ in baptism. That could not have taken place for the thief
because Jesus had not yet been buried. 3) Christ had not yet been
raised from the dead. For those of us today in the Christian age,
Romans 10:9 says, “That if you confess with
your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God
has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” I can’t be saved like the
thief on the cross, because I must believe that Jesus
was raised from the dead. That had not taken place yet
at the time that the thief died. 4) At the time that the thief was hanging
on the cross and at the time that the thief died, Christ had not yet given the Great Commission. In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus gave the command,
“Go into all the world, teaching them and baptizing them.”
This is after the thief. And so, baptism in the name of Christ--
the baptism in the Great Commission--was later. It was after the thief died. So, the baptism of the Great Commission
could not have been applicable to the thief. A sixth argument that sometimes
people make relates to Cornelius. People will argue that Cornelius
was saved prior to being baptized; therefore baptism is not
necessary for salvation. You may remember that in Acts 10,
the apostle Peter is sent to the home of
a man named Cornelius. Cornelius, of course,
was the first Gentile convert. It’s in Acts 10 that God
first brings the Gentiles into the church. And this is a very difficult thing
for the Jews to accept. They just could not believe
that God would accept the Gentiles. Anyway, God sends Peter to Cornelius’ house
to preach to them. Acts 10:44 says, “While Peter was still
speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon
all those who heard the word.” Upon seeing this, Peter sees that the
Holy Spirit fell upon them, they receive miraculous ability,
they began to speak in tounges. When Peter saw that, in verse 47 he says,
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the
Holy Spirit just as we have?" Now the argument--and I think should say the
assumption rather than argument... The assumption is that since the Holy Spirit
fell on them prior to water baptism, that that means that they
were saved prior to water baptism. But, friends, the problem is this: This argument,
again, is nothing but an assumption. There is not a single verse in the Bible that
states that Holy Spirit baptism saves a person. There is not one indication in the Bible that
says that being baptized by the Holy Spirit is an indication of your salvation. And as a side note, Holy Spirit baptism is
only recorded twice in the Bible anyway-- once on the Jews in Acts 2
and once upon the Gentiles in Acts 10. But secondly, there is something very key
that people are missing when they make this argument about Cornelius. If you get this point that I'm about to make,
then you can definitively answer their argument. In Acts 11:15--now remember in Acts 10,
we have the account where the Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius and his
household and they begin to speak in tongues and they've
got miraculous ability. And then Peter sees that and says, “Can any
forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" In Acts 11--which is the next chapter--
Peter is rehearsing what took place in Acts 10. In Acts 11:15, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit
fell upon Cornelius' household--now listen-- as Peter began to speak. Acts 11:14--the previous verse says--
that Peter was going to tell these people words whereby they could be saved. And so, what happens is this.
Peter shows up. He’s going to tell them words whereby they
can be saved, but as soon as he starts speaking the Holy Spirit falls upon them.
Do you see the problem with this? He had not yet even told them
what to do to be saved yet. He had just started his sermon. The point is a person has to
hear the Word before he can be saved. They had not even heard the words yet.
He had not even told them how to be saved. And yet, the Holy Spirit falls upon them.
Friends, you know what this is? This is proof positive that the Holy Spirit
baptism had nothing to do with them being saved. Somebody says, “Then why did it happen?
Why did the Holy Spirit fall upon them?” And the answer is because the Jews were having
a very hard time accepting the fact that God was going to allow the Gentiles to be a part
of the church--that Gentiles could be saved. The could not believe that God
would accept the Gentiles. And so, God lets the Holy Spirit
fall upon these Gentiles. They do miracles, they speak in tongues,
and it clicks with the Jews--it clicks with Peter-- and he says, “God is obviously accepting them,
because they’re having the same miraculous evidence that we did. In light of that,
God is obviously allowing them to be saved." And so, immediately he says, “Can any forbid
water that these should not be baptized?” That is Peter is saying,
“I get it. God is accepting them; therefore they should be baptized so
that they can have their sins remitted." Argument number seven.
Sometimes people will make this argument. Sometimes people will say, "Baptism is merely
an outward sign of an inward grace." They will say that baptism is not something
that is necessary for salvation, but rather it is merely symbolic
so that other people can see it. And they will go to a passage like Romans 6:3-4,
“Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through
baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.” They will read that passage and they will
say, “See? The whole thing is just symbolic. It is just a symbol of the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ." As so they'll say, "When we are baptized,
we are just reenacting it for the world. It's an outward sign for the world
of an inward grace. That is, we're already saved." Friends, the problem is that the text does
not say that this is merely symbolic. Rather, what the text says is that baptism
"puts us into Christ” (verse 3). And 2 Timothy 2:10 says that salvation is
“in Christ” and so without baptism to put me into Christ, I have no salvation. This passage also says that
we are buried into the death of Christ. Christ shed His blood in His death, and in
baptism, I contact that blood in His death. The text says after baptism we are
raised to walk in newness of life. If this 'Outward Sign’ theory were correct,
I would have already been walking in newness of life prior to baptism. Remember, they believe that you are saved first,
and then you are baptized. So that would mean I have newness of life
and then I'm baptized. That's not what the Bible says. Romans 6:3-4 says that we are baptized
and that point--after baptism, at the point of baptism--
we get newness of life. Sometimes when discussing the figure--
the supposed figure of Romans 6:3-4-- they will also point to 1 Peter 3:21 in the
King James Version of the Bible where it says, “The like figure where unto
baptism doth now also save us.” They’ll say, “See baptism is a figure.
The Bible even says it's a figure.” The problem is that the text says,
“It saves us.” The figure there is a comparison.
It is a type/antitype. The type is the water that
saved the people on the ark. The antitype is the water saves us.
The fact that we are saved by water. Friends, I would never go to 1 Peter 3:21
if I wanted to disprove baptism. In fact, listen to the last part of this verse.
This is from the ESV. It says, “Baptism, which corresponds to this,
now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an
appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Why is baptism described in
this passage as an appeal to God for a good conscience--
for a clear conscience? Why do I get a clear conscience
when I am baptized? Friends, it's because in baptism,
the guilt is taken away. The sin is taken away. And that's why I have a good conscience--
a clear conscience. Argument number eight: A final argument that's
sometimes people make is this: They will say that baptism
is not always mentioned. Sometimes people will wonder,
“If baptism is necessary, why isn’t it always mentioned
in cases of conversion?” You might be surprised
at the answer to this question. In the book of Acts--
which is the book of conversions-- there are, obviously, a lot of
different conversion accounts. I want you to look at this chart with me. Across the top is the
steps of the plan of salvation. We have preaching,
which would represent hearing the Gospel. Believing, repenting, confessing,
and being baptized. Down the left, we have the conversion accounts.
I want you to notice this. The people on the Day of Pentecost heard the
preaching of the Gospel--Acts 2:14--they believed, they repented. It is not specifically
stated that they confessed. But then it is recorded that they were baptized. With the people of Samaria, we are told that
they heard the Gospel, they believed. Repentance and confession
are not specifically mentioned. But baptism is mentioned. With the Ethiopian eunuch, we are told that
he heard the Gospel, he believed. Repentance is not mentioned.
Confession is mentioned. Baptism is mentioned. With Saul--in Acts 9--we are taught
that Saul heard the Gospel. It's implied that he believed it.
It's implied that he repented. It's implied that he confessed. And, of course, he was taught
to be baptized in Acts 22:16. With Cornelius, he heard the Gospel.
He believed it. It's implied he repented. Confession is not mentioned.
But, baptism is commanded. With Lydia, we have that she heard the Gospel.
It's implied that she believed. Repentance is not mentioned. Confession
is not mentioned. And she is baptized. With the jailer in Acts 16, he
heard the Word. He was taught. Repentance is not mentioned.
Confession is not mentioned. But he was baptized, according to Acts 16:33. With the Corinthians in Acts 18, they
heard the Word. They believed it. Repentance is not mentioned.
Confession is not mentioned. He was baptized. With the Ephesians in Acts 19,
they heard the Word. They were taught. Repentance is not mentioned.
Confession is not mentioned. But they were baptized. Now what is interesting is the argument is
sometimes made that baptism is not always specifically mentioned. But when we look at these specific conversion
accounts, what we is baptism normally is mentioned, but some of the other steps of the
plan of salvation are omitted. Of course, that does not mean
that they did not do them. It just means that they are not recorded. We understand that all
of these things are necessary. Friends, there are many more arguments
that people make against baptism, but the fact is they are equally as weak. There are few things that the Bible teaches
as clearly and as simply as the necessity of baptism in the plan of salvation. It is where we contact the blood of Christ;
it is where our sins are forgiven; it is where I am added to the church; and is it where I finally
in obedience obtain salvation.
