Salvation
|
The way of salvation according to The New Life |
|
Paul C.
Jong, founder of The New Life Mission, teaches that in order to be saved a man
must believe in Jesus’ baptism and in His death on the cross. Here is what he
wrote: ‘To be saved from all our sins, we must believe in the gospel that
states that John the Baptist passed all sins onto Jesus through the means of
baptism. …. In order to be redeemed of all our sins, we have to believe in
His baptism, through which John the Baptist passed all the sins of the world
onto Jesus and the Cross…’ (Have you
truly been born again of water and the Spirit?, e-book, page 229).
However, it is important to note that when Jong affirms that John passed all
sins onto Jesus ‘through the means of baptism’ he means that this happened
through the laying on of the hands of John: ‘John the Baptist passed the sins
of the world onto Jesus for our salvation when he laid his hands on Jesus'
head’ (from their website: http://bjnewlife.org). Jong explains us that
baptism ‘means 'to pass on to, to be buried, to be washed' — the same as 'the
laying on of hands' in the Old Testament’ (Ibid.,). In other words, John baptized Jesus by laying his hands
on the head of Jesus. |
|
At this
point, in order to help you understand why Jong attaches so much importance
to this alleged laying on of hands which took place at the Jordan river, it
is necessary to say that according to Jong, John the Baptist was predestined
by God to be the last High Priest because the Old Testament ended when Jesus
Christ was born. The Bible, according to Jong, confirms the priesthood of
John for it says that he was a descendant of Aaron the High Priest (since
Zechariah, the father of John, was of the division of Abijah – Luke 1:5). And
since according to the law of Moses, when the High Priest made atonement for
the sins of the Israelites he had to lay his hands on the head of the live goat
to put all their sins upon its head, so John the Baptist had to lay his hands
on Jesus to put all the sins of the world on him. Here are the words of Jong:
“Before the people, Aaron laid his hands on the second goat and confessed
before God. "Lord, the people of |
|
|
|
Confutation |
|
|
|
It is true
that on the Day of atonement the high priest had to lay his hands on the live
goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat and he had to confess over it all the
sins of the Israelites and then that goat was sent into the desert as a
scapegoat, for it is written: “And when he hath made an end of reconciling
the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he
shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head
of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the
head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land
not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness” (Leviticus
16:20-22); and it is also true that this foreshadowed the fact that one day
the Lamb of God would bear all our iniquities. But it is also true that on
that day the High Priest did not have to lay his hands on the head of the
other goat which was to be offered to make atonement for the sins of the
Israelites (for on that day the High Priest had to take two male goats for a
sin offering), nor did he have to confess over it the sins of the Israelites.
For it is written: “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is
for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood
as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat,
and before the mercy seat” (Leviticus 16:15). Therefore, the High Priest had
to lay his hands on the head of the live goat alone, and he had to confess the
sins of the Israelites over the live goat alone, yet the other goat also was
used for making atonement for the sins of the people of Israel and
foreshadowed the atonement that Christ would make, even though the High
Priest did not have to lay his hands on its head nor confess over it the sins
of the Israelites. And keep in mind that the first goat (that is, the one
whose lot fell to the Lord) had to be slaughtered, offered upon the altar,
and its blood had to be taken behind the curtain into the Most Holy Place,
while the second goat (the one chosen by lot as the scapegoat) was not
slaughtered but it was sent into the desert. However, even though there was
this difference in the ritual of the day of atonement, we are sure that the
second goat also foreshadowed the Christ who would bear all our iniquities in
His own body. I have said these things to show that the first goat also was
used for making atonement for the sins of the people, even though the
Scripture does not say that the High Priest had to lay his hands on it or
that he had to confess over it the sins of the Israelites. |
|
How were
our iniquities to be passed onto Jesus then? How was Jesus to take on Himself
our sins? Maybe through the laying on of the hands of a High Priest and the
confession of all our sins made over him by this High Priest? Not at all.
Furthermore, even if we grant for the sake of argument that all our sins had
to be passed onto Jesus through the laying on of the hands of a High Priest,
without any doubt that High Priest had to be the High Priest of the temple,
who was Caiaphas at the time; however such a thing did not happen. How could
such a thing ever happen? However, what does Mr Jong do then? He comes out
with the teaching that John the Baptist was a High Priest, or rather, the
last High Priest; we can’t accept such a thing because it is not supported by
the Scripture in any way, even though John was certainly a descendant of the
sons of Aaron, that is, he was of priestly descent. In addition to this, I
want to say this: where does the Scripture state that John the Baptist laid
his hands on the head of Jesus or that he administered the baptism to Jesus
through the laying on of his hands? The answer is, ‘Nowhere,’ so the teaching
according to which John passed onto Jesus all sins of the world through
baptism, or rather through the laying on of his hands, does not have any
Scriptural basis. There is no Biblical evidence, not even a hint, that John performed
that act. |
|
Furthermore,
as we have seen, the High Priest had also to confess over the live goat all
the sins of the people of |
|
However,
what I want to stress is that this doctrine attaches too much importance to
the baptism of Jesus, that is to say, this doctrine leads believers to think
that in order to be saved they must believe in the baptism of Jesus, while
the Scripture never states that in order to be saved a man must believe in
the baptism of Jesus. According to the Scripture, one must believe that Jesus
is the Christ of God who died on the cross for our sins (that is to say, He
bore our sins in His body on the cross), who was buried and the third day He
rose again for our justification (cf. Romans |
|
Neither
does the Scripture affirm that in order to be saved, a man must believe that
when Jesus was baptized John the Baptist passed onto Him all the sins of the
world through the laying on of his hands, for as we have seen such a thing
did not take place. Therefore all those arguments according to which “one
Man’s righteous act” (Romans 5:18 – NKJV) accomplished by Jesus to justify us
includes Jesus’ baptism are vain, because that righteous act is the death of
Christ, the shedding of His blood which took place for the remission of our
sins, which was followed by the resurrection of Jesus which was worked by His
Father. Didn’t Jesus teach this when on the night He was betrayed He took the
cup and gave it to His disciples saying: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:27-28 – NKJV)? Of
course, that cup symbolized His blood. What has the baptism of Jesus to do
with the remission of sins then? Of course, Jesus’ baptism was an important event,
I am not questioning its importance, Jesus had to be
baptized by John; however what cleanses our conscience from dead works is the
precious blood of Jesus alone which Jesus shed on the cross and not His
baptism. Therefore, we were reconciled to God through His death and not
through His baptism; this is something which is attested by the Scripture
many times. For instance Paul says to the Romans: “Much more then, being now
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Romans 5:9-10), and
to the Colossians: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness
dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to
reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in
earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies
in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his
flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in
his sight” (Colossians |
|
We must
preach the cross of Christ, as the apostles did, and not the baptism of
Christ, and we must exhort men to repent and believe in the atoning death of
Christ and in His resurrection as well, but we must not add the baptism of
Jesus to these things as Mr Paul Jong does ignorantly, who in his books
speaks more of Jesus’ baptism than of His death. In other words, we must
follow the example of the apostle Paul. Obviously, with regard to the death
of Christ we must preach that it was necessary because without shedding of
blood there is no remission, and that the shedding of His blood was
foreshadowed many times by the law of Moses, and we must preach also that
Jesus Christ bore our sins in His own body on the cross, however let us see
that we don’t say that John the Baptist was the last High Priest appointed by
God who had to lay his hands on Jesus to pass onto Jesus all our sins because
such a thing is untrue. The Scripture says that “the LORD hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6), and that “he shall bear their
iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). The Scripture does not say that a High Priest
would lay on Jesus all our sins!!! In addition to this, Jesus did not need a
High Priest for He Himself was the High Priest of our confession who had to
offer Himself for our sins (cf. Hebrews 7:26-28 and 3:1) and therefore he had
to bear all our sins and that’s what He did on the cross. Therefore Jesus
Christ was at the same time the Sacrificer and the sacrifice which had to be
offered for our sins. To Him be the glory now and
forever. Amen. |
|
When did
Jesus bear our sins? When and where did God lay on Him all our sins? The
Scripture teaches that this took place on the cross when Jesus was crucified,
for Peter says: “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that
we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness – by whose stripes you
were healed” (1 Peter 2:24 – NKJV). This is confirmed also by Paul when he
says that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become
the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21 – NKJV) and also that
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for
us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Galatians
3:13 – NKJV). Therefore it was on the cross that Jesus took on Himself all
our sins, and not at His baptism! Reflect upon this: it can’t be true that Jesus
Christ took on Himself all our sins at His baptism, because if it had been so
He would have been made to be sin even before He began His ministry. At His
baptism Jesus did not take on Himself the sins of the world, but He was
anointed with the Holy Spirit. |
|
Therefore,
to sum up, I tell you that we must not interpret the baptism of Jesus in the
way Mr Jong does, nor must we believe that in order to receive remission of
sins it is absolutely necessary to believe that through the baptism all sins
were passed onto Jesus. Take heed to yourselves,
beloved, because this strange doctrine of Mr Jong has had evil consequences
on the way of salvation, for according to Mr Jong in order to be saved faith
in the atoning death of Christ is not sufficient, for a man must believe also
that John the Baptist passed all sins onto Jesus at the |