Bible Question on Baptism for the Dead, 1 Corinthians 15:29

When we come across a passage within the Bible that is difficult to interpret or seemingly means something that contradicts another plain teaching of scripture, we must look at it through our understanding of the plain teaching of scriptures. Many choose to interpret the difficult passage first and then take perfectly plain scriptures and twist them to fit their interpretation of the difficult passage. Such we must not do, for such is handling the word of God incorrectly. We read in 2 Peter 3:16 the words of Peter who describes some of Paul’s epistles. He says, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” We must make sure that we do not wrest the scriptures to our own destruction.

So with those things in mind, we come to 1 Corinthians 15:29. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” The context of this particular passage is that of Paul’s proving to the Corinthians that the resurrection is going to happen. There were some in that day who were teaching that there was no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12). The Sadducees believed this too (Matthew 22:23). Some were teaching that the resurrection had passed (2 Tim. 2:18). Paul, however, was teaching that the resurrection was still coming and he used every available means to prove this to those in Corinth. So whatever this phrase means–that is, whatever the phrase “baptism for the dead” means–its significance is that the resurrection is still coming.

This phrase does not mean what those of the Mormon faith believe that it means. Mormons believe that one may be baptized for someone who is dead who was not a Mormon, and that person will then have the opportunity, after death, to accept the gospel. The long and short of this teaching is that you get a second chance to be saved after you die. This doctrine just does not mesh with other clear teaching that is within the scriptures. We read in Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” In Luke 16:24 we read, that the rich man wanted Lazarus to come cool his tongue. Abraham replied, “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence” (Luke 16:26). The rich man knew that there was no escape because he then asked that Abraham send someone so that his brothers would escape this place. Jesus said in John 9:4 “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” The night when no man can work is after death. There are no more works that a person can do to affect one’s salvation after death. Perhaps a statement made by Isaiah makes this quite plain. He says, “Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth” (Isaiah 38:17-19). Isaiah makes it clear that the time for forgiveness of sins is now. The time to be delivered from the pit of corruption is while one is living. Once one has died and is lost, there is no more hope for truth. The living are the ones who have the obligation to make known God’s truth. Paul says, “For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succored thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Today is the day of the living. Today is the day of salvation.

So what does the phrase “baptism for the dead” mean? To be honest, I am not sure that I know what it means. There have been many different suggestions. Some have suggested that it refers to Christian baptism. These suggest that the phrase “the dead” refers to those who have died to sin and are being made alive in Christ. When they do this, they affirm the resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:1-11. In this understanding, “the dead” is actually short hand for “the resurrection of the dead.” So that it would be baptism for the resurrection of the dead, i.e. in order to obtain the resurrection of the dead.

Others have suggested that Paul is referring to this group of people who are teaching that there is no resurrection for the dead implying some kind of self-contradiction among their own teaching. In other words, they were teaching that there was no resurrection, but they were practicing “baptism for the dead,” i.e. a vicarious baptism for those who had already died without being baptized. This, however, implied a resurrection because baptism is the form of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Those who hold this view say that Paul is not giving an endorsement to the doctrine, but merely stating that if one believed it, then it would imply that their doctrine of no resurrection is false.

Yet another interpretation states that those who had come to accept Christian baptism did so due to the influence of the faithful dead over the many years prior to their baptism. In this sense, they are being baptized for, that is, on account of, the dead who came before them. So if they were being baptized on account of the dead, then they should recognize that they would one day be raised. Finally, one view says that we have the punctuation wrong in the translation. Instead of reading as we would normally read, this view opts for the reading, “Else what shall they do that are baptized? If the dead are not raised at all, (baptism) is for the dead (spiritually). Why are they then baptized for the dead?” This view sees the phrase “the dead” as referring to people who are spiritually dead and thus baptism has no effect for them. I.E. if there is no resurrection, then baptism doesn’t take us out of death and into life, it just leaves us in a state of spiritual death and does nothing for us. We are merely being baptized to become dead. I don’t believe that I can say for certain that I know what this phrase means. I do know, however, that it does not endorse some type of proxy baptism for those who have died un-repented.

Source: http://gewatkins.net/please-explain-1-corinthians-1529-what-does-the-reference-to-baptism-of-the-dead-mean/

Is baptism essential for salvation?

Is baptism essential for salvation? 
That baptism is essential to one’s salvation becomes very apparent as you begin to study with an open mind the various passages in the New Testament on baptism. 
By baptism: 
(1) we are saved (Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21), 
(2) we are born again and enter the kingdom (John 3:5), 
(3) we are forgiven of sins (Acts 2:38), 
(4) we have our sins washed away (Acts 22:16), 
(5) we contact the blood of Christ and are placed into Christ (Romans 6:3-4), 
(6) we are added to the one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), and 
(7) we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

Since we are to be baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27), noticing what is found in Christ is very revealing in proving the essentiality of baptism. 

Notice what is found in Christ: 
(1) salvation (2 Timothy 2:10; Acts 4:12), 
(2) all spiritual blessings (Ephesians 1:3), 
(3) redemption and forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7), 
(4) no condemnation (Romans 8:1), 
(5) grace (2 Timothy 2:1), 
(6) eternal life (1 John 5:11), 
(7) fullness (Colossians 2:10) and 
(8) all the spiritual promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20). How can anyone deny the essentiality of baptism?!

Who is a proper candidate for baptism? 
The one being baptized must have been taught and must have learned the things taught. Jesus said to His apostles they were to “make disciples” (ASV) before baptizing (Matthew 28:19), and this can only be done through teaching. The one being baptized must gladly receive the word (Acts 2:41). One who is baptized just to please someone else is not a scriptural candidate for baptism. The one being baptized must be a believer (Acts 8:36-37; Mark 16:16). The one being baptized mustrepent of his sins — give up the old life of sin (Acts 2:38). Paul gave evidence of his repentance (Acts 9:9-11) before he was told to be baptized (Acts 22:16). Also, to be a scriptural candidate for baptism, one must confess the name of Christ (Acts 8:37; Romans 10:8-10).

What is the proper mode of baptism? 
The word “baptize” in our English Bibles comes from the Greek word BAPTIZO. “Baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word. A proper translation of BAPTIZO would be immerse. Well known Greek works such as Thayers Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine, and Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible all agree that BAPTIZO means to dip, plunge, or immerse. It is enlightening to note that the words sprinkle and pour have their own separate Greek words as is clearly seen when looking at Leviticus 14:15-16 in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. If God wanted pouring He would have used EPICHEEL or if He would have wanted sprinkling He would have used RANEI. But God wanted immersion so He used BAPTIZO, “for God is not a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Furthermore, the Bible describes “baptism” as being a burial. Compare Romans 6:4. Even a little child understands that a burial is a complete covering. When a child asks his dad to bury his dead pet, he would expect nothing less than a complete covering of that pet. To be baptized is to be completely dipped, plunged or immersed in water.

A careful study of Acts 8:36-39 reveals that baptizing requires coming to the water, a going into the water, the actual baptism, and then, a coming up out of the water. Philip would not have gone through all of this with the eunuch unless baptism was an immersion. When we add the fact “much water” is needed to baptize (Jn. 3:23), we can easily see and rightfully conclude that baptism is an immersion. One must be immersed in water for the remission of sins to be scripturally baptized.

What about denominational baptisms, are they pleasing to God? 
First of all, teachings relative to denominational baptisms are wrong. Generally, this “baptism” is not a submission to the Lord, but a submission to their own will. The religious world has rejected the Lord’s reason for baptism and have come up with their own reasons. One cannot be taught wrong and practice right, and neither can one believe wrong and obey right. One must be conscious of the Lord’s commands concerning baptism.

Some think they have obeyed God when in reality they have not. A good example of this is king Saul. Saul was instructed by Jehovah to “smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1 Samuel 15:3). But Saul, you will remember, did not do as Jehovah had commanded. Saul smote Amalek, but spared king Agag and everything that was pleasing to him. Notice how Saul views his disobedience when speaking to Samuel, “Blessed be thou of Jehovah: I have performed the commandments of Jehovah” (1 Samuel 10:13). Like Saul, many are disobeying God’s commands concerning baptism, and yet, still think they are obeying God. What was said of Saul still holds true today. “Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as obeying the voice of Jehovah? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifices, and to harken than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22).

For God to accept any baptism, it must be done exactly as He has prescribed! One must be a penitent believer and be immersed in water for the remission of sins. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).

COMMENTS
James Gerarden says:
July 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm
How do you answer to Romans 10:9? Also, how do you personally deal with the instances in which a person can’t be baptized? I am wondering these things because I want to be able to answer people’s questions about this matter of baptism. Please respond to this. Thank you in advance for your help.

REPLY
G. E. Watkins says:
July 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Glad to have you here. With regard to Rom. 10:9 I would have to say from experience that the one you would be answering is simply going to move to one of a dozen or more passages that deal with salvation and don’t mention baptism. It likely won’t matter when you mention that the confession mentioned is the same confession mentioned in the account of the Ethiopian nobleman that was given just before his baptism (Acts 8:37). It may not even matter that the passage doesn’t mention repentance either and yet the essentially of repentance is clear (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3, 5).

What DOES matter is positive statements in the scriptures that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) that it washes away sins (Acts 22:16) and that it saves (1 Pet. 3:21).

The answer to the second part is this, ‘That which proves too much proves nothing.’ Ask what happens if a person doesn’t have the opportunity to believe or to pray the “sinner’s prayer” (as some practice).
Let me know if I need to expand on these things.

Source: http://gewatkins.net/baptism-essential-for-salvation

NOTE: You can also visit www.cocoogooluwa.org

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF EASTER

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF EASTER

By Kenneth E. Thomas

When? How? Where did “Easter” begin? Did first century Christians observe  “Easter?” Is it of Biblical origin? Should Christians observe it today? Did Christ or His  chosen apostles authorize the “Easter” observance and its pageantry?  The above questions are of great importance! I shall attempt to answer each of them  as clearly and definitively as possible in this study. This day “Easter Sunday” is one of  the “holiest” days on the calendars of both the Roman Catholics and many Protestants  as well. This being true, one would naturally expect to be able to read something about “Easter” in the New Testament wouldn’t you think? The New Testament claims to  have within its pages “all things that pertain to life and godliness..” (2 Peter 1:3). Also the apostle Paul by inspiration wrote, “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God,  and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, KJV). Damnation is threatened to any and all who twist, add to, or take away from that which is divinely revealed in the Bible, specifically the New Testament (John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:16; Acts 3:22-23; 2 John 9-11; Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:6-11).

With this fixed in your minds, think of this, Easter isn’t so much as mentioned in your Bible, let alone its pageantry, time of observance etc.  It was not observed by the apostles and early Christians. If one is to learn anything about the answer to the questions we have posed above, one must go outside the Bible to secular history and the practices begun by the apostate Roman Catholic church, which came into being years after the Lord’s church was established, and after the close of the completed and confirmed New Testament.

It is imperative that you do not allow prejudice and tradition to close your mind to what we are writing here. Don’t lay this tract aside until you have considered what we have to say. Your soul’s salvation may well depend on how you react to this information. If I am in error on this matter, be kind enough to correct me. If I am

correct, you need to learn the facts about “Easter.” Someone will say, “wait just a minute! I found Easter in my Bible. It is in (Acts 12:4).” I knew someone would make this statement and so I have copied a portion of a page from my copy of Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament so you can read for yourself that the translators of the King James version of the N.T. of 1611 AD, were not true to the manuscripts. This was probably due to the fact that both the Roman Catholic and the Church of England had by this time in history begun to practice the observance of “Easter” with all of its attendant trappings. A faithful translation would have found the word that has been translated “Easter,” “Passover” instead. In addition to this quote from Berry, I shall show you what the noted Greek scholar said about this matter. The Bible will be our final source of authority of course, not the writings of uninspired men.

Still, most of us common folks must rely on the work of these scholarly men who know the original languages for our English renderings. The New Testament was written in the common Greek language. Consider the following, please. This simply cannot be disregarded. It has a bearing on our subject. In fact this is a death knell to this observance to an honest heart.

One could be so blinded by tradition and “grasp at the straw” above and see “Easter” in (1 Corinthians 5:7), but nothing remotely resembling it may be found there or anywhere else in the New Testament.

What About the Resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the tomb on the third day is actually the “corner stone” of the religion of Christ! My brethren and I believe in the resurrection with all of our hearts! The resurrection of Jesus proved His identity as the divine Son of the living God (Romans 1:4) so states. If Jesus wasn’t raised He isn’t on David’s throne for He was “raised to sit on David’s throne” (Acts 2:22-36; Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 1:32-33).

If Christ wasn’t raised and exalted, we have no high priest, no forgiveness of sins, and are of all men most miserable! (1 Corinthians 15:17; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 Corinthians 15:18- 19; John 20:14-18; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:13; Mark 16:12; John 20:19-23). We do not minimize the importance of the resurrection. Belief in the resurrection has nothing

whatsoever to do with the pageant and observance known as “Easter.”

Jesus Gave a Memorial!

Jesus instituted the one memorial that is authorized in His word. It is known as the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). “Communion” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The “breaking of bread” (Acts 20:6-7). Jesus placed this observance “in His kingdom” (Luke 22:16-20; Matthew 26:26-28). History as well as Scripture show that this was a weekly observance in the local churches of Christ until uninspired men changed it years later (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:6-7; 1 Corinthians 11:19-34). Those changes were and are sinful (2 John 9). To add memorials unauthorized by Christ’s word is likewise sinful (Acts 3:22-23; John 12:48; Luke 6:46).

Although not specifically stated, several things may be deducted from the observance of this memorial. (1) That Jesus did come into the world in fulfillment of the prophecies of our Messiah (Matthew 1:18-21; John 1:1-4,14). (2) That He died for our sins (1 Corinthians 11:24) “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.” “This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” And, “For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show the Lord’s death till He come.” The phrase “till He come” suggests the resurrection as well as the final advent of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23-34).

Isn’t it strange that the “one memorial” authorized by Jesus for His followers to honor Him, has been so corrupted by uninspired men that their corruption of the Lord’s Supper has become known to the Catholics as a Sacrament, and is called the Mass where Jesus is sacrificed over and over daily. It is carried to the sick beds and given significance which the Lord did not intend it to have. Conversely, Protestants minimize the importance of this memorial and some “observe” it monthly, quarterly, yearly, or some not at all. Too, the elements are not regarded as important by some. They substitute other elements for the “unleavened bread” and the “fruit of the vine.” Why will men bring into being things the Lord did not authorize, and fail to observe as commanded and as shown by approved apostolic example, what Christ desires of those who follow Him?

What Does “Easter” Mean?

I shall answer the above question by going to the source of those who created it as a yearly observance, the Roman Catholics. From my own copy of a Catholic Bible with the imprimatur by Albert Cardinal Meyer Archbishop of Chicago, 1965 edition.

“EASTER: This feast, commemorative of the Resurrection of Christ, is named for the Teutonic goddess of light (Anglo Saxon title Eastre or Ostera); her festival was held in April. The Jewish feast of the Passover is linked with Easter as Our Lord is regarded as the true Paschal Lamb; and in the 8th century the name Easter was adopted as the title for this festive celebration.

As early as the 2nd century, there were keen disputes respecting the day on which this feast should be kept. In 325 A.D., however, the Council of Nicaea ordained that Easter should be observed always and everywhere on one and the same day; and that the day should be on the Sunday next after the full moon that came on or after the vernal equinox, which falls on March 21, provided that when that moon was full on Sunday, Easter should be the Sunday following. Referred to as the Passover, Acts 12:4 1083.

EASTER DUTY. The obligation to receive Holy Communion during Easter time, which is generally from Palm Sunday to the first Sunday after Easter. The time, however, varies in different parts of the world according to custom.” If the above quote is correct, it shows clearly that this corruption and departure from New Testament teaching was begun within a couple of hundred years after the apostolic period. The fact is, if it began one day or one year after the final revelation was completed and confirmed, it was too late to be of apostolic origin (Jude 3; John 16:12-13; 2 John 9; Galatians 1:6-11). The information above suggests however that the name “Easter” wasn’t given until the 8th century A.D. It also reveals the origin to be the heathen goddess of light Eastre or Ostera. Now my friends, what do you think of “Easter?”

In the first century when someone tried to bind as part of the religion of Christ, practices not authorized by the men whom Christ inspired with the Holy Spirit to reveal “all truth,” (John 16:13), they were condemned in no uncertain language. When some wanted to bind parts of the law of Moses on followers of Christ, the apostles said they were “subverting your souls” and “to whom we (the apostles, KET) gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:23-24).

Today when religious leaders bind practices unknown to the New Testament on those in their particular fellowship, such as “Christmas” and “Easter,” they are subverting the souls of those who accept and engage in such unauthorized activities (Colossians 3:17; 2 John9; Colossians 2:8; Matthew 15:9).

Someone may ask, “then what about the other days and seasons associated with “Easter?” What about “Lent” “Ash Wednesday” “Fat Tuesday” “Mardi Gras;” “Passion Sunday” “Palm Sunday” “Good Friday” etc. etc. etc.? Simply stated, they fall under the light of New Testament teaching, as practices and inventions of uninspired men. They are sinful practices, things which cannot be done to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. He asked the Jews of his day, “And why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say” (Luke 6:46)? Jesus Christ has “all authority in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; Philippians 2:5-11; Ephesians 5:22).

Many folks believe certain unauthorized practices to be acceptable to the Lord if “their church” says it is alright! Not so! The Bible, not the church, the (Roman church nor any Protestant church) is the authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:11).

What Will You Do Now?

Having learned the origin and the unscripturalness of the practice of observing “Easter,” what will you do now? Will you continue to support a “church” that engages in this unauthorized memorial to the resurrection of Christ? If you do, you will be “bidding Godspeed” to every error they teach and practice (2 John 9-11). God has told those who desire to serve Him in faithfulness down through the ages to “come ye out from among them....”(2 Corinthians 6:14- 18). Will you come study with us, learn and obey the truth of the gospel of Christ and meet and worship with his people? 

Source: http://churchofchristnow.com/articles/general/the_origin_and_history_of_easter.pdf

You may wish to visit www.cocogooluwa.org

Should Christians Observe Easter?

Should Christians Observe Easter?

Easter is a widely-observed annual celebration commemorating the resurrection of Christ. You probably have noticed that Easter comes at a different time each year. "Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon that falls on or next after the vernal equinox (Mar. 21 in the Gregorian calendar); if the full moon happens on Sunday Easter is celebrated one week later. Easter Sunday cannot be earlier than March 22 or later than April 25; dates of all other movable church feasts depend on that of Easter" (Webster).

The Origin of Easter

Some church historians assert that Easter observance began in the first century, but they must admit that their first evidence for the observance comes from the second century (Schaff, History of the Christian Church II:207; Latourette, A History of Christianity, I:137). There soon arose a bitter controversy over which day Easter was to be celebrated. Some were observing it on any day of the week, and others were celebrating it only on the nearest Sunday. This indicates that they had no instruction from the Lord on this matter. By A. D. 325 the council of Nicaea decreed that it should be on Sunday, but did not fix the particular Sunday. The exact time of observance was determined by later councils.

Is Easter in the Bible?

The word Easter is only found one time in the English translation of the Bible and there it is a mistranslation. The King James rendering of Acts 12:4 used the phrase "intending after Easter." Albert Barnes, a noted Presbyterian commentator who wrote in the nineteenth century when the King James version was widely used, said,

"There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles" (Barnes Notes on the New Testament, XI, 190).

The word translated Passover, and the one used in Acts 12:4, is pascha. It means "a passing over" and is used with reference to the Jewish festival of Passover which was celebrated on the 14th of the month Nisan. This same word is used in Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1, Luke 2:41; 22:1; John 2:13, 23 and other places, and in every instance is translated Passover in the King James Version except Acts 12:4. More recent versions correctly use the term Passover in Acts 12:4. It is absurd to think that Herod Agrippa I wanted to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. The Scripture says that he "laid hands on some who belonged to the church, in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword...he proceeded to arrest Peter also" (Acts 12:1-3).

New Testament Christians Did Not Observe Easter

The famous fourteenth edition of Encyclopedia Britannica says,

"There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians" (VII:859).

The apostle Paul warned against the observance of feast days, new moons, etc. (Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16-17). Another reliable source says,
"In apostolic times the Christians commemorated their Lord's resurrection every Sunday, by meeting on that day for worship. When Paul refers to Christ as our passover (1 Cor. 5:7) his language is metaphorical and cannot be regarded as containing any allusion to a church function" (A Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, p. 140). For many people, Easter has become the one time of the year they attend church services. Concerning urging of Catholics to receive Holy Communion the question was asked, "They must go at least once a year if they would be regarded as Catholics?" "Father" Smith answers, "Yes, during Easter time" (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, p. 159). Many forget the admonition of Hebrews 10:25: "not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near."

Importance of the Resurrection of Christ

Let no one imagine that we oppose the resurrection of Christ. It is the bedrock of Christianity and the deity of Jesus rests upon it (Rom. 1:4). Christians today meet every first day of the week, as did the early Christians, to observe the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7). The first day of the week is a memorial to the resurrection of Christ. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ, serves as the form of an individual's death to sin, burial in baptism, and resurrection to walk a new life as a new creature in Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom 6:3-11; Col. 2:12).

Conclusion

"Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God (1 Pet. 4:11). The celebration of Easter began too late, and without the expressed authority of God!

---

By Ferrell Jenkins. This article may be downloaded from biblicalstudies.info and distributed freely in its entirety. We invited you to visit our companion site, bibleworld.com. Source: http://biblicalstudies.info/easter.htm

BIBLE ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS

This is a link to Bible Answers to Some Questions, happy reading!
http://www.cocogooluwa.org/bibleq.php
Do you have question, please feel free to send your question to us through this email: questions@cocogooluwa.org
Thank you for visiting, please.

INVITATION TO PUBLIC GOSPEL PREACHING AT OKUKU, OSUN STATE, NIGERIA

LETTER OF INVITATION

RE: FEBRUARY, 2014 OUTDOOR GOSPEL LECTURES AT OKUKU, OSUN STATE

Grace be to you and peace from God our father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is to invite you to a 2-day public and house to house preaching which come up between Friday, 28 ^th February and Saturday, 1^st March, 2014 in Okuku, Osun State with a view to having the church fully established in this town.

It is our goal that with the help of God and cooperation of the brethren, souls shall be won in the town this year. We therefore solicit your maximum participation in this programme. Details of the program, is

The theme of the lectureship is “Searching for the Ancient Path …” (Jeremiah 6:16), while the topics for discussion and speakers are as stated below:

Friday, 28th February, 2014

Topic:   1. The Bible and Its Purpose
       2. Acceptable Worship

Saturday, 1st March, 2014

Topic: 1. The Evil of Departing from the Ancient Path
      2. The Ancient Path of Salvation

      TIME:         5.30 p. m. – 7.10 p. m.

      VENUE:      Frontage of  Town Hall, Okuku, Osu State.

Thanking you for your usual support in His Vineyard.

Yours in His Vineyard,
K. S. Ajibola

^{web: www.cocogooluwa.org} 

^{e-mail: ogooluwacoc@gmail.com; info@cocogooluwa.org}

^{GSM: +234-805-604-8209}