Contact Us
Respond to The Christian Examiner
There is great religious confusion regarding how man is saved from his sins. Some denominations advocate the doctrine of faith only, while others teach that man is saved by grace only. It is unfortunate that many brethren within the body of Christ are now promoting one of these false doctrines. The doctrine of grace only remains the most professed belief among liberal brethren today. I have heard many of these brethren say that there is nothing that man can do in order to become a Christian.
The Bible teaches that man plays a part in being saved from his sins. James says,
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:17-18).This truth can clearly be seen in the story of Naaman, the leper, in 2 Kings 5. When Naaman went to Elisha, he thought that he did not have to do anything in order to be cleansed from his leprosy. Although he believed, his faith was not enough to save him. His servants came and rebuked him for his error. They said,
"My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean," (2 Kings 5:13).
Naaman responded by obeying the command given to him by Elisha,
and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean, (2 Kings 5:14).
Likewise, when a sinner desires to become a christian, he must not only have faith in that Jesus can save him from his sins, but also obey the plan of salvation. This plan requires every sinner to hear the word of God (Romans 10:14), believe that the word has been preached unto him is the truth (Romans 1:18; Hebrews 11:6), be convicted in his heart that he is a sinner and repent of his sins (Romans 3:23), confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior(Romans 10:10-11), and be baptized "for the remission of sins," (Acts 2:38).
Ira Mikell
ira@thechristianexaminer.com
This edition is part three of four, Lord willing, of responses to questions asked by Mr. A. A. Davis in his article of "101 Questions for Campbellites," which may be accessed by clicking here. Let us now examine questions 52 through 76.
Question: Since the same FAITH dwelled in Timothy, his Mother and his Grandmother, were they not all saved alike?
Response: We read the following in 2 Timothy 1:5:
having been reminded of the unfeigned faith that is in thee; which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and, I am persuaded, in thee also.
The faith that they all had was faith in God, first of those under the covenant with Moses, and with the revelation of the work of Christ, faith in God through Christ. We know that if nothing else both Timothy and Eunice had faith in God through Christ, as seen in Acts 16:1:
And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
We are not told how long Lois lived, if she was amenable to the Gospel of Christ or not; we may be certain, however, that if she was amenable to that Gospel, she certainly believed in Him. Regardless, they were saved through the faith that they had in God according to the covenant to which they were amenable.
Question: Who preached the Gospel to Abraham? Galatians 3:8.
Response: Galatians 3:8:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all the nations be blessed."
This text is not saying that the "Gospel" of the New Testament, i.e. the relation of the death of Jesus Christ for our sins and His resurrection and the need to obey Him, was preached to Abraham, but that the "good news" was given to Abraham through the promise of God that "in [Abraham] shall all the nations be blessed," i.e. the inclusion of the Gentiles into the fold under Christ. God let Abraham know that in the future, all of the nations would be blessed through his Seed, Jesus the Christ.
Question: What Prophet in the Old Testament prophesied of BAPTISM?
Response: It is interesting that when we note Joel 2:32,
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.
which is also partly quoted by Peter in Acts 2:21, we see Joel speaking of "calling upon the name of the Lord" for salvation, and we further read that Paul performed the following deed in Acts 22:16:
"And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name."
Therefore, we see that "calling upon the name of Lord" is equated with baptism, and this was spoken of by the prophet Joel.
Question: Did Peter preach to Cornelius that all the prophets bore witness to the fact that whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sin? Acts 10:43. Do you believe what Peter said?
Response: Acts 10:43:
To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.
We have seen in the Scripture in Joel above that "calling upon His name" was in some way equated with "baptism," and we can see from a comparison of Acts 16:31 and Acts 16:33 that belief and baptism also seem to be corollated:
And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house"...And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
Why were they baptized immediately unless baptism was a requirement of belief? Further, why did Peter insist upon the following in Acts 10:47-48?
"Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Therefore, I certainly believe that Peter spoke of the need of belief in Christ, and there is no belief in Christ unless one believes in obeying Him, as is made manifest by James in James 2:19:
Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
"Belief" is not mere intellectual assent to the proposition that Christ lived and died for us, but an active desire to obey Him since He has done so much for us.
Question: If Peter preached Baptism, FOR or IN ORDER TO REMISSION OF SIN in Acts 2:38, why did he not preach the same thing to Cornelius in Acts 10:42,43?
Response: We read in Acts 10:44 the following:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.
Therefore, the Scriptures make it evident that Peter had not yet finished speaking to Cornelius concerning the Gospel of Christ. We see in Peter's sermon in Acts 2 that he first exhorted those to whom he preached to believe, and when they responded in an attempt to determine what they should do, he preached repentance and baptism. It is of exceeding interest, however, that Acts 10:47-48, quoted above, show that Peter's immediate reaction to Cornelius and his men having received the Holy Spirit was to command them to be baptized. If baptism was not important, and not necessary for those who receive the Holy Spirit, why did Peter immediately insist on them being baptized?
Question: In your sugar text which you yourself do not understand (Acts 2:38) how many words BETWEEN the word BAPTISM and the word REMISSION? You will have to cut 11 words out of your text before you can JOIN BAPTISM TO REMISSION OF SIN. What means these 11 words - which you and your brethren always avoid?
Response: Let us again examine Acts 2:38:
And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
We must grammatically examine this sentence. First, there is the command ("be baptized"). Then we see to whom the command is directed ("every one of you"), followed by a prepositional phrase that demonstrates the authority of the baptism ("in the name of Jesus Christ"), and then the purpose of the baptism ("unto the remission of your sins"). This phrase of Peter would be just as grammatically correct if it were rendered "and be baptized unto the remission of your sins every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." This is basic grammatical understanding that does not change between English and Greek.
Question: What is the Greek Word translated or rather Anglicized into the word Christ in Acts 2:38? Why don't you put the exact Greek word in the text and then read Acts 2:38 to your people and quit making a childish play on the preposition FOR? When you do this you find complete harmony with Acts 10:43 and John 3:16 -Just a little kink right here give the people the original there- you won't have to notice the preposition so technically.
Response: The word "for" is the Greek term eis, and it is translated most properly in the ASV as "unto." It is a clause of purpose in the Greek, which is far more grammaticaally specific than English is, and it is most certainly not causal as Baptists would like to make it out to be. Eis is translated as a clause of purpose many other times in the Scriptures; how come there is no debate about these translations until we reach Acts 2:38? And how come the "Evangelical" NIV does not translate it any differently than the NASB or the KJV? This argument has no basis in the Greek.
Question: Does the word WATER as used in John 3:5 mean Baptism? Why didn't Christ say what he meant to say? If he really meant Baptism -when he said water- by the same reasoning - He evidently meant Baptism in the next Chapter (John 4:7-15). Read again the story of the Woman at the well -substitute the word Baptism for Water everywhere it is found in the story exactly as you substitute the word Baptism for water in John 3:5- see what a story you make. False Doctrines always lead to muddy water. Where the Bible speaks -we speak.
Response: You are not speaking where the Bible speaks, because the Bible conforms to rules of context, which you seem adamant to destroy.
We read the following in John 3:3-7:
Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'Ye must be born anew.'"
Jesus is evidently speaking to Nicodemus about the "second birth," the destruction of the desire of the flesh for the desire of the Spirit. The earthly birth is of the flesh, and has no place in this discussion: one must be born of the water (baptism) and Spirit. Jesus is not speaking of two births here, is He? By no means!
In the story of John 4:9-15 is in a completely different context, Jesus speaking to a woman at a well of literal water. This story in and of itself uses water in two different senses-- the literal, represented by the water present, and the spiritual, the "living water" or the word spoken by Christ that gives eternal life to those who hear and do it. The term "water" is not even used in the same sense in this passage alone, and you would have us believe that the term "water" must be used in the same sense in the same form throughout the Scriptures? Think on these things.
Question: The sermon to Nicodemus was BEFORE Pentecost- Did Christ jump the gun by preaching to him when Pentecost had not come.
Response: We are told the following in Matthew 4:23:
And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people.
Jesus was preaching the "gospel of the kingdom," but the Kingdom was not to be established on earth until Pentecost (Joel 2:28-32, Matthew 24-25). Jesus was teaching concerning the things that would be, not necessarily the things that were at that time. It is beyond a doubt that Jesus taught Nicodemus about this kingdom in John 3, since Jesus even mentions it, and therefore we conclude that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus concerning the things that would be in the future.
Question: Is the term "CHURCH OF GOD" a Scriptural term?
Response: The Church of God is a designation given to the church by Paul in multiple places (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:2), and therefore may be an acceptable designation of His Church.
Question: Do you recognize people who call themselves CHURCH OF GOD?
Response: They may call themselves the "Church of God," but they are not His Church unless they conform to His Will and submit to be governed by Him. I have seen that there are many doctrines taught by this organization that are not in harmony with the Scriptures; therefore, I will not fellowship nor worship with them (for more evidence on this group, please click here).
Question: Does wearing a Scriptural NAME alone mean that BODY is a Scriptural Body? Upon that grounds do you refuse to recognize the Holiness people who call themselves by the name CHURCH OF GOD?
Response: No, a Scriptural designation (since Christ never named the Body) alone does not make a church "Scriptural." Only when the church is the "pillar and support of the truth" as it is supposed to be in 1 Timothy 3:15 will it be a "Scriptural" church. The grounds upon which I do not believe the various denominations deemed "Church of God" represent the truth of the Scriptures may be found at the link above.
Question: If those people are going to Hell in spite of their name (According to your doctrine they are all lost), Then it will take MORE THAN A BIBLE name to save them -will it not?
Response: You have again impugned upon my beliefs, confidently asserting that "according to [my] doctrine they are all lost." I believe and teach only that their teachings are not in harmony with the Scriptures, and that God will judge them and us.
Regardless, a designation alone does not save. There must be some substance behind the designation.
Question: If it takes more than a BIBLE NAME to save the Holiness, this they will admit: Will it take more than a Bible name to save you? Will you admit it?
Response: I have never asserted that a designation alone saves; we seek a designation found in the Scriptures because we desire to be the church seen in the Scriptures.
Question: Were the Converts and Disciples called CHRISTIANS on the Day of Pentecost? Were they saved? The Antioch Believers (Acts 11:26) were first to be called CHRISTIANS (10 years after Pentecost). Were the Antioch Believers any more saved than the Pentecost Believers? Did they call THEMSELVES Christians- or were they CALLED CHRISTIANS?
Response: We see that there are some names given to those who obeyed Christ: they were called disciples (Acts 6:1), "those who believed" (Acts 2:44), and "Christian" (Acts 10:26). Salvation was not dependent on the name they were called individually, but upon their faith in Christ. While we are told that the disciples were first "called" Christians in Antioch in Acts 11:26, we also read the following in 1 Peter 4:16:
but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.
Therefore, "those who believed" and "the disciples" also called themselves Christians.
Question: Did Jesus or His Apostles anywhere in the 4 Gospels use the word Christians? Did Jesus know what to call his Followers? If it is of Divine Origin-why did not the name Originate with Jesus the True Authority in matters of religion?
Response: The name "Christian" obviously did come with divine approval, for we read the following in Matthew 16:18-19:
"And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Roman Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, Jesus here is obviously referring to a time in the near future where Peter (and the other Apostles) would be entrusted with the message of the Gospel with the authority of Christ. Since this same Peter in 1 Peter 4:16 used the term "Christian" to denote a believer, we may be confident that this was a part of the authority of proclaiming what was loosed and bound in Heaven by the authority of Christ.
Question: Did Jesus say to Nicodemus "Ye Must be born again" or did He say "Ye must be Baptized and wear the name Christian", Which?
Response: Jesus told Nicodemus what was quoted above in John 3:3-7: one must be born again of water and of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God. Only the rebirth is spoken of here, and Jesus is making a clear reference to baptism and to the Kingdom that He spoke of constantly as almost near. Therefore, we may conclude that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus about the Kingdom approaching, that its citizens would not gain that right through birth but through their re-birth into Christ.
Question: Were the members of "Church of God at Corinth" LOST because Paul failed to call them CHURCH OF CHRIST?
Response: It has already been stated that "church of Christ" is not a name but a designation of the church found in the Scriptures. The members of the church in Corinth would be saved or lost upon the judgment that will be rendered according to their deeds.
Question: Is it possible for anyone to be a Believer who is a member of a church not called the CHURCH OF CHRIST?
Response: A believer will desire to be in a church that has a designation that is found to be in the Scriptures to describe the Church purchased with the blood of Christ. A believer will find such a church since he will want to obey God in all things.
Question: Were these people lost who were members of the Church of God at Corinth?
Response: The members of the Church of (God, Christ, the Firstborn, etc.) at Corinth will be saved or lost according to the judgment of Christ. It is my personal belief that the designation they used was not improper, and that the church that was in Corinth in the first century did not share the doctrinal positions of the current denomination named the "Church of God."
Question: Were there any Churches in the New Testament -not called by the name- CHURCH OF CHRIST? Were their members saved or lost?
Response: Actually, there was no local congregation in the New Testament that had any name. The local congregations recognized that they were the "called out," and would often use a description that demonstrated who owned them. Therefore, they were deemed the "called out of Christ," or the "called out of God," or the "called out of the Firstborn," or what have you. The Christians of the first century will be judged upon the same basis as the rest of us, according to our deeds (Matthew 16:27).
Question: Is the term THE CHURCH OF CHRIST found as a TITLE to any one CHURCH in the Bible anywhere? Give CASE AND NUMBER OF ROM. 16:16.
Response: Who is asserting that the "church of Christ" is a title given to a church? Again, the phrase is simply a designation of the ownership of that Body, and the term is found in the Scriptures. Here is Romans 16:16:
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Since we are told in Ephesians 4:4 that there is only one Body and in Colossians 1:18 that the Body is the Church, we safely conclude that Paul is not speaking of two or more "church universals," but two or more local congregations of the "church universal." Multiple local congregations may be designated by the term "churches of Christ," and one local congregation may be designated as a "church of Christ." The charge of "title" is yours and yours alone.
Question: Where was your CHURCH OF CHRIST when Alexander Campbell was being baptized by a Baptist preacher?
Response: There is actually much evidence that supports the conclusion that there were multiple congregations of believers who followed the message of the Scriptures and used the designation "church of Christ" long before Alexander Campbell, and, interestingly enough, long before John Smythe ever walked the Earth. This evidence may be found by clicking here.
Question: Was Elder Luce, the Baptist preacher who Baptized Campbell, a Christian? Did Baptist Baptism put Alexander Campbell into the Church of Christ? If not, when and how did Campbell become a member of the Church of Christ?
Response: Again, I do not know the nature of Campbell's baptism but I do know that he desired to use the designation "Disciples of Christ." I am not aware, nor can I be aware, of whether or not Alexander Campbell was in the "Church of Christ," the church universal, until the Judgment Day.
Question: If Baptist Baptism put Campbell INTO CHRIST and HIS CHURCH -why will not Baptist Baptism do the same for people today?
Response: Again, will you please show the Scripture that speaks of "Baptist Baptism?" I have not heard of such.
There may certainly be people who are immersed in water for the remission of their sins in the Baptist denomination. This, however, does not guarantee admission into Christ, unless one walks according to the commandments of the Scriptures.
In the next edition we will finish examining the questions that Mr. Davis has raised and attempt to answer them with the Scriptures.
Ethan R. Longhenry
ethan@thechristianexaminer.com
www.deusvitae.com
Thank you for examining materials from The Christian Examiner. If you have any questions or comments regarding anything you have read here, or you desire more information, please feel free to e-mail us at tce@thechristianexaminer.com. Thanks!
Please click here to return to the main page for Volume III, or please click here to return to the main page for The Christian Examiner.