Answering A Baptist

• • Typically Baptists and Pentecostals use about the same arguments to refute non faith only groups, and the Churches of Christ in particular. My comments will be in blue and I will try to be brief in my answers. This page could be a book all its own. Some sections will be longer to cover more thought.

You will see the arguments used against the Church of Christ are simply false. I  guess you can find tracts and articles written by church members that are written poorly, or use inadequate wording that can be picked apart, but for the most part COC articles are factual and straight forward.

The writer of the article is James L. Melton a Bible Baptist, who wrote several tracts against several denominations not Baptists. He believes in separating themselves and likes to mark others.

He is simply wrong this time.

 He has written several other tracts but this is one I will use. It was written in the 90's it looks like, and uses mainly traditional arguments we have seen for years. The arguments are pretty easy to answer but it does take time. If you are a new Christian or new to such arguments you will just have to slow down and process the information. This will cover.

• • The historical case for the Church of Christ

  • Spiritual church vs physical church.

  • The Names of Churches including the name Church of Christ.

  • Doctrinal likeness to the original Church.

  • Musical Instruments.

  • The Lord's Supper weekly.

  • The Rapture vs a general resurrection.

  • Salvation through Baptism.

Keep in mind many of the same arguments are used by all unity in diversity groups. The Baptists were originally Church of Christ in Britain and they broke off into a Diversity movement.

The Bible versus the "Church of Christ" This article is a slightly condensed version of a small booklet that I wrote a few years ago. It's purpose is to expose the false teachings of the so-called "Church of Christ." If you attend a Church of Christ, or you know someone who does, I challenge you to read this study carefully, checking all of the scripture references in your Bible and praying for the Lord to show you the truth (Jn. 16:13). Remember, Jesus said SEEK and you shall FIND (Mt. 7:7).

You should check the scriptures carefully because he uses a lot of deception, but most of his objections to Church of Christ doctrine are really old and have been around a long time. They have been answered many times over. Yet, since he wrote so many in one article it is a good opportunity to answer all of them in one sitting.

John 16:13 is speaking of the Holy Spirit guiding the Apostles, then they wrote his guidance to the world. In the end it will all come down to how we understand and accept their writings.

What is the Church?

The Church of Christ people fail to realize that the "true church" is a spiritual organism, NOT a physical organization. In the tract, Introducing the Church of Christ, by Delton Haun (Haun Tract Co., Pasadena, TX.), we read on page 8 that, "The Lord promised only one kind and built only one kind--There is only one body (Eph. 4:4), and that one body is the church. (Col. 1:18)"

There are many things that are physical and also have spiritual consequences. Sin in the garden was a physical act with spiritual consequences.

Jesus was physical, he became flesh for a spiritual purpose. He physically died but for spiritual reasons. The church being physical does not make it less spiritual. The one body has both properties.

He is borrowing his point from Charles Spurgeon who argued a physical act such as baptism could not be for spiritual purposes, but the Lord's death was a physical act for spiritual purposes.

The foundation for Spurgeon's argument wasn't sound.

We hold that persons are not saved by baptism, for we think, first of all that it seems out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ came to teach, that he should make salvation depend upon mere ceremony. Judaism might possibly absorb the ceremony by way of type into her ordinances essential to eternal life; for it was religion of types and shadows. The false religions of the heathen might inculcate salvation by a physical process, but Jesus Christ claims for his faith that it is purely spiritual, and how could he connect regeneration with a peculiar application of aqueous fluid?  

Spurgeon was incorrect by using the phrase "purely spiritual".

Spurgeon was hypocritical, the crucifixion was a physical act that had spiritual consequences. Spurgeon and his followers were simply wrong about baptism and other works of the church. It can be a physical act with spiritual consequences like the crucifixion. If he gives up baptism because it was physical then he must give up the crucifixion because it was physical.

Also we never taught salvation was mere ceremony as he alleges, we teach that God is working through physical acts like the cross, baptism, and evangelism where we must act. People hear the Gospel through physical ears. We all receive the Gospel through a physical act of hearing or seeing.

His main argument simply falls apart.

Here Haun isn't referring to the SPIRITUAL body of Christ. He is referring to his own religious group, which he CALLS the body of Christ. He is referring to his particular group of people who believe and practice the same things, NOT a spiritual body of born-again believers.

The Church of Christ accepts people of any denominational name that are obedient to the Gospel, you find groups different from the COC in various areas where we acknowledge them as Christians in their basic beliefs. We do not always join with them because of differences in some doctrines, but we acknowledge their entrance into Christ was biblical. They were baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. There are some who have the same plan of salvation we practice and we see them as Christian. 

The difference between us and the writer's view is we do not accept all who share the same plan of salvation, since being baptized into Christ implies being baptized with a view toward accepting his teachings. There are many who share our view of baptism but differ in doctrinal points.

We are not diverse in that we do not believe all baptized will be saved if they ere in being disciples. If they do not follow Christ's teaching, such diversity is not our belief. The Church of Christ in England split to accept such diversity, and became several denominations such as Baptist and eventually Pentecostal. They became diverse to the point they accepted all denominations that accepted "thief on the Cross" theology", which is a false theology.

He is simply being judgmental, stating that they are not born again believers who believe different from him. You will find the Church of Christ is a born again body. His definition of born again is faith only, those who believe in Jesus and receive Holy Spirit baptism. He sees no other possible explanation. The Church of Christ believes born again covers several areas.

1. Born in belief.  John 1:13, I Peter 1:23, I John 5:1

2. Born of Water. John 3:5 Matt.28:18-20, Acts 2:38

3. Born of Spirit. John 3:5 , Acts 2:38, Galations 4:6

4. Born in Obedience  I John 3:9

5. Born in Love  I John 4:7

We do not limit the New Birth to simple belief as this writer seems to. Also realize how backwards he is, what the scriptures say are traits of being born again, he says we aren't born again because we do them.

This can be very confusing for an unsaved reader who knows not what it means to be born-again spiritually into the spiritual body of Christ (Jn. 3:3; I Cor. 12:13). The only "church" that the natural man can understand is a PHYSICAL church that he can see with his eyes. A natural man who has never been saved cannot understand how it is possible for people to be "born" into the spiritual body of Christ. Unfortunately, the Church of Christ people don't understand it either.

All church groups are a physical body, even his. He is arguing from hypocrisy. We have no choice but to be a physical body, since we are still physical.

1Co 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

We won't have spiritual bodies until the resurrection. Yet we do have a spiritual side, having received the gift of the Holy Spirit . What he calls spiritual is being baptized with the Holy Spirit. We believe we receive the gift of the Spirit after baptism. Acts 2:38 Galations 4:6

His denomination and ours teach Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, we just disagree about when and how. So, we see ourselves just as spiritual as they do.

The verse he gives above is both baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. He sees it as only the Spirit.

Coffman Commentary a Church of Christ writer sees it equal to John 3:5.

In one Spirit were we all baptized ... Throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is revealed to be one of the two essential elements of the new birth, without which no man may see the kingdom of God. These are: obedience to the ordinance of baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Jesus joined these two essential elements by his requirement that people be "born of the water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5ff). Peter joined them on Pentecost by the command that all people should "repent and be baptized ... and ... receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38ff). There is no doubt whatever that Paul's words here refer to the same twin essentials of the new birth, the same being a prior condition of participation in the body of Christ.

Since we are born of water and spirit, we are indeed God's spiritual church, though Milton denies our right.

Coffman's Commentary, written by a Church Of Christ commentator, states our belief that we are God's spiritual body,

The great Pauline teaching that the church comprises the spiritual body of Christ is among the most important teachings revealed to man.

On pages 9 and 10 of this same tract, Haun says that, "The church of Christ today is no more or no less than the New Testament church reproduced in doctrine and practice in this twentieth century."

Haun is correct, the COC is the same as the early church in doctrine. Not in all practices because the apostles office and prophets office ceased. Something he agrees with. Therefore things like apostles miracles and laying of hands by apostles have passed. Otherwise the early church and COC are the same. Most of the differences pointed out by Pentecostals relate to spiritual gifts and their passing. Most accusations by Baptists revolve around baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The early church practiced baptism and the Lord's Supper as we do. Plus we have the same type of organization with Elders and Deacons.

This is a common belief in the Church of Christ. Another tract titled, Are You Looking for a Church? (Exum Press, Crystal Lake, IL.), says on pages 11 and 12 that the Church of Christ people are actually going back and becoming members of the "original church that Christ built." These people believe that the true Church ceased to exist for about seventeen centuries, and that THEIR church has restored the true faith for today. This would mean that such great Christian men as John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Knox, and George Whitfield were not really members of the "true church" because the "true church" didn't exist in their lifetime.

He doesn't believe people can be grafted back into the church and others cut out. We do not believe the Church Christ built completely ceased, we believe there was a remnant that men like Campbell and Stone were grafted into.

Rom 11:23  And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

We do not believe we are the original Christians, as if Christianity started with us in our era, we believe we were grafted back into the original body. The original body started with Christ and the 120 disciples, the church spread and filled the world, but a falling away later took place that we believe started the Catholic church.. Even though the falling away was widespread, we believe there was a remnant of Christians throughout history that did not fall. Catholics called them by differing names, but they were similar in doctrine to us. There were bodies of Christians throughout history teaching Christ's doctrine.

If these great men he mentions above were not a part of the true church it would be because of doctrinal deviations, not because the church ceased to exist. It is indeed probable that his list of faith only teachers did not get accepted by Christ. We have to live with such possibilities. They did not accept Christ's plan of salvation and openly renounced the true church.

The only people he listed as great men were from his denominations, faith only groups. You will find many Baptists in the 15th century taught as we do. We would have embraced them and they us. 

Matthew Henry, for instance, taught baptism close to our view. It was after the 15th century that modern Baptists moved closer to the Catholic view of the thief on the cross (see baptism of desire) and later the protestant view of faith only. They simply misapply the thief on the cross.

J.W. McGarvey in his commentary on Acts quoted a Baptist who agreed with us about baptism. Their turning away from our view is fairly recent and was influenced by Catholic theology based in protestant groups. Before 1900 there were many Baptists that were in agreement with us.

Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: "eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matthew 26:28,Lu+3:3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other."

https://www.sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home/grafted-in-again

There is absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for this doctrine. In Matthew 16:18, the Lord Jesus Christ plainly said, ". . . . I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The true church has existed since the day Jesus started it. All throughout church history, millions upon millions have entered into the spiritual body of believers by receiving Christ as their Lord and Saviour (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 10:13). If you have received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, then you are a member of the true church,

no matter WHAT denomination you are associated with, and if you haven't received Him, then you are NOT a member of the true church, regardless of how many religious groups you join. Salvation is not in a church; it's in a PERSON--the Lord Jesus Christ.

His argument is actually a Catholic rebuttal to Catholics being the falling away. By branding people to say they believe the church ceased, they were able to introduce verses that said the church would never cease. Thus, it was a Catholic deception to discredit those teaching they were a fallen body.

The Church of Christ did not teach the true church completely ceased. We believed in remnant theology. He ,as did Catholics, misrepresented our beliefs. Mormons teach it completely ceased, not us.

https://sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home/falling-away

What is interesting is he believes as we do in the falling away and that there was a remnant whereby the church continued. In his tract against Catholics he writes,

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism. ...

...Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.

So, he teaches the same thing we do. It seems he either found one COC person who believed in church cessation in the falling away or he borrowed a Catholic deception. My own experience around the COC is that they taught remnant theology as does this writer. He condemns us for believing what he believes.

We also believe in accepting Jesus as Lord and Christ, but we believe this is lived out through the obedience of faith (Romans 1;5), and not simple belief. God justifies our faith in Jesus as Lord through our obedience to Gospel promises.

He says the church doesn't matter, but inside the church there is power to prevail against Hades. Yes, this is through Christ, but it is in the Church. He is in denial. If he believes the church doesn't matter, why is he convincing us to come out of ours?

The Church Name The Church of Christ claims to reserve for itself the only scriptural name for a New Testament church, although the term "church of Christ" is found nowhere in the Bible.

The term church means to be called out, but most people don't realize the root means to be called by name. Ek (Of) and Kleycia (called by name)

kaleō

Thayer Definition:

1) to call

1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice

1b) to invite

2) to call, i.e. to name, by name

2a) to give a name to

2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name

2a2) to give some name to one, call his name

2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)

2c) to salute one by name

His argument that name is unimportant fails since the word church implies the calling by name.

Thus the word church implies receiving a name or being called by name. God never gave the name Catholic or Baptist, he did refer to us as "of Christ".

One part of this is actually true, the name in singular form in English does not appear, it is in the plural. Churches of Christ. The term Churches of Christ denotes origin and ownership. The Gk. word "of" means originating. The idea there is a singular church originating with Christ is clearly taught. The idea the church is associated with the title "Christ" is true whether singular or plural. The idea of ownership is taught. It is plural because the church consists of congregations locally. It can be used singularly and Plural. It was used in the singular by multiple early writers so we can be sure it was common to use it in the singular.

The words body and church are almost the same idea. Church means called out body. The term "body of Christ" is in the New Testament so we have it being referred to in the singular. Church and Body are synonyms that can be used interchangeably. The key is both are "of Christ".

If it can be used in the plural for multiple congregations, what objection is there to using it singular for the church as a whole. The person is simply being unreasonable and not thinking logically. His sole purpose is to fight what all reasonable people know to be ok, and to minimize our objection to them using names nowhere close to the New Testament.

Act 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The writer has no valid point, for the word Church is tied to a definite origin, Jesus. Jesus bought it. It is properly the Church of God and the Church of Christ. It is also the Church of God in Christ.

He lies in saying we believe this is the only scriptural name, for the scriptures call us

The church

The church of God

the churches of Christ

the churches of God in Christ

Body of Christ

Christians

The name Churches of Christ signify origin and the name Church of God in Christ signifies location, so they are both true and are not contradictory.

The names Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene etc are all foreign to the scriptures and history for many years after the beginnings of the Church. Some names were used decades later, some centuries, to a thousand years delayed. This is what he is trying to overcome , he wants us to believe the above man given Names are equal with actual Biblical names.

If you went back to the tracts he is refuting they were saying the use of unbiblical names is human, not of God. He is simply trying to say the Churches of Christ use an unbiblical name as well. He is wrong.

On page 4 of George Baily's pamphlet, Why I Am A Member of the Church of Christ (Lambert Book House, Shreveport, LA), we read these words: "Since the church belongs to Christ shouldn't the church be so called?

George Bailey is correct.

It is certainly scriptural to refer to the Lord's body as the 'church of Christ'." This is the result of human reasoning, not Bible study. There is nothing particularly wrong with the term "Church of Christ," but it is wrong to insist that this is the ONLY scriptural name for the church when the term isn't even found in the Bible! A Bookmark of Basic Bible References, by John Hurt (Hurt Publications, Smyrna, TN), gives several scripture references to "prove" that the term "church of Christ" is the only scriptural name for the church. The references listed on this bookmark are Romans 16:16, Acts 4:12, Matthew 16:18, Philippians 2:9-10, Isaiah 62:2, and Colossians 3:17. The term "church of Christ" is found NOWHERE in any of these references, because the Lord never specified a special name for the church. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26), but a specific name is never given to the church itself.

It is used by one of he Holy Apostles (Romans 16:16) who was guided by the Holy Spirit,  by inspiritation, it came to be so called in describing the church. We should bear the name of Christ.

Music in the Worship Service

According to the Church of Christ, it is unscriptural to use musical instruments in worship services. Only vocal singing is allowed. On page 4 of Surprising things about the church of Christ, by Dub McClish (Valid Publications, Denton, TX), we are told the following: "The apostle Paul wrote the following instruction on this subject: 'Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord' (Eph. 5:19). In a parallel passage he wrote: 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God' (Col. 3:16). Please notice that this is activity in which all of the assembled worshippers are to be involved. Just as no one can do our praying, studying, or giving for us, no one can do our singing for us.

We do not teach it is unscriptural, since it is found in the scriptures. It is not found in the New Covenant as if used today on earth. It is found in the book of Revelation which is a book of symbols. The incense for instance is described as prayers. The incense in the heavenly worship is therefore symbolic and not literal. The instruments are likely symbolic as well. Each elder had a harp of God, thus not a harp as we know it, could be grace or the heart.

Notice one instrument is used in Revelation by Christians in heaven. The harp. Possibly figurative of the heart. Yet, the world is seen using multiple instruments. It was speaking of the great harlot using multiple instruments. 

Compare Rev 19:5-6 and Revelation 18:22

a call to praise from God, then came a multitude of voices with no mention of instruments.

The harlot had multiple instruments and the church used voices.

Just because it is in scripture does not mean it is being used scripturally. Jesus criticized those who announced their alms with a trumpet, thus using an instrument to accentuate their performance of a worship act. It seems the Jews had begun to use them in ways God did not teach them.

Mat 6:2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets,

This is being used literally. Some Jews had begun to add them to the synagogue to highlight their acts. This is similar to the Catholic eucharist where they have small bells being sounded throughout the performance to make it seem mysterious.

Using music to accentuate self or to make an act seem more spiritual would be rejected by Christ. Most Jews did not have instruments in the synagogue, but some had begun to use them there. Orthodox Jews only used them once a year in the synagogue, for one song. It seems Christ rejected their general use in the synagogue apart from God's purpose. They were reserved for the temple and not the streets or synagogue.

I looked at some of his other writings and found that he uses the same argument we do for other issues, that practices in the Old Testament are not always valid in the New. Thus, he admits the argument is valid at least in the areas he uses them. He uses it selectively. For instance he sees transition from the Old Testament sacrifices into the sacrifice of Christ. He just doesn't accept all of the transition of Old Covenant worship as we do.

The tract he is answering involves a question of choirs and solos, where some allow others to sing for them, thus professional singers and bands to perform church worship in our behalf, etc.

I went to a Pentecostal tent meeting once where they had a nice loud band and it was rocking, I saw the band the next week at a mall and started to talk to them, they said they didn't know the preacher and he simply paid them to play at the tent meeting. They were not even a part of his denomination. It is common to use bands and musicians for hire.

" To what "assembled worshippers" do you suppose Mr. McClish is referring? In Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, the apostle Paul is instructing Christians in matters pertaining to their PERSONAL FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST, not worship services. The Church of Christ is very quick to quote these two verses OUT of their proper context, ignoring the two chapters in which they are found. Neither chapter speaks of "assembled worshippers," and neither chapter forbids musical instruments.

I beg to differ with his assessment, it isn't speaking of personal singing as in James 5:13, but singing to one another and teaching one another in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. This is a group action. I guess some could be done at home in the family, teaching kids or friends, but the verses include worship settings.

James 5:13 is clearly an individuals personal praise.

Jas 5:13  Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.

He is correct that neither chapter forbids instruments directly, they do forbid following paganism in life and worship, and forbids binding Judaism. Pagans used dancing and instruments and alcohol and sometimes fornication to excite themselves in worship, plus they thought it pleased the Gods. What God had forbidden in a personal sense would also be forbidden in worship.

Jesus spoke against some types of Jew and gentile worship, so it is clear he did not accept everything they practiced. He forbade praying as the hypocrite Jew and Gentile in Matthew 6, and then told them how he wanted them to pray in the Lord's prayer. He forbade sounding trumpets in the synagogue and other like practices.

Mat 6:5  And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.

Mat 6:6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.

Mat 6:7  And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Mat 6:8  Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Jesus addressed both groups, false worship from the Jewish side, and false worship from the Gentiles. If you study the writings of the church fathers they rejected instruments based upon these three points of view. Jesus himself rejected some worship and they seem to be following his teachings.

1. Some church fathers said to avoid the appearance of Judaising.

2. Some church fathers said not to copy idolatry from the gentile side.

3. Some mentioned making worship theatre.

AQUINAS "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

ERASMUS "We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones." (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)

The idea you can't hear the human voice because of the music is an important objection as well. I Cor 14:19

Jesus also used the word actor (Hypocrit) to describe some of the Jewish worship. Worship was not meant to be theatre to draw attention to ourselves.

All three points of view were expressed by Christ concerning worship in general, so we should not be alarmed if the apostles set up our worship by following Christ's teaching on these subjects. Christ would have objections over song as well, if gentile practices made the singing unfit.

Jesus also rejected Judaism as practiced in Jerusalem, and worship from the Fathers as accepted in Northern Israel. Jesus did not give these two patterns of worship to the church for precedents for worship. Quite the opposite. This is important because some would base their instruments on the fathers before Judaism. Jesus did not use either as his model for worship.

Joh 4:21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.

Joh 4:22  Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.

Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.

Jesus said worship of the Northern Israel tribes lacked understanding

Usage of musical instruments is dependent upon Judaism as a precedent, or the precedent of allowing different forms of worship from worldly cultures. Jesus did not accept either idea, but rejected them. This is very plain. If we chose to use them it would have to be based upon some other grounds.

Ephesians and Colossians follow the same method. He says what not to do and then says what to do.

1. Ephesians says not to incorporate Gentile practices

2. Colossians says not to be bound to Judaism

Ephesians 4 establishes the context of Church activity together. His objection that Ephesians addresses only private life is invalid. So, Ephesians addresses the private life and public worship. Deviations in public worship were just extensions of Gentile life in general. Fornication, whoredoms, uncleanness, were all used in Gentile worship. Including the breakdown of family where wives were over husbands in worship.

Eph 4:16  From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Paul is therefore addressing private and public activities, it involves the entire life.. He tells them not to walk as the gentiles walk.

Eph 4:17  This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

Eph 4:18  Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Eph 4:19  Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Eph 4:20  But ye have not so learned Christ;

The gentiles practiced self-fulfillment and greed, thus getting paid and committing unclean acts. Much of their worship was for money and wealth.

Paul does not mention every possible violation, but lists the gentile ways in general. They incorporated unclean acts in life and worship. They transposed the order of society.

This flows into Ephesians 5 where he tells them to avoid covetousness which is Idolatry.  Changing worship style to create mega churches and consequently wealth would fall under this prohibition. They were also to avoid drunkenness, but be filled with the Spirit. Gentiles often had orgies and drunkenness in worship to their gods.

 The anti-thesis to Christian worship.

Eph 5:1  Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

Eph 5:2  And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Eph 5:3  But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Eph 5:4  Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Eph 5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Eph 5:6  Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Eph 5:7  Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

Eph 5:8  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Eph 5:9  (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Eph 5:10  Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Eph 5:12  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Eph 5:13  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Eph 5:14  Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Eph 5:15  See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

Eph 5:16  Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Eph 5:17  Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

Eph 5:18  And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Eph 5:19  Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Eph 5:20  Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Eph 5:21  Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Submitting yourselves one to another isn't always private, but consists of corporate activities together.

Self-fulfillment was to take a backseat to love in the body. Exercising gifts for self was wrong. Singing for money was covetousness. Christian worship was to be very different than worldly worship. That is why Christian worship did not follow the pattern of the gentiles. God stated what he wanted after telling them to deny gentile methods.

Love

giving of thanks

spiritual songs with no mention of ecstatic bands for excitement

edification

It does not specifically forbid many things, but it does deny us the right to make ourselves rich through bands and choirs and preaching for profit. It forbids us from bringing in gentile practices in opposition to what we were commanded.

Thus in Ephesians 5:19 and Col.3:16 he tells us what he wants us to practice. This in the backdrop of what he told us to avoid. Singing with

melody in our hearts (Eph)

grace in our hearts (Col)

It is possible these are for individual singing, but it is more likely for all scenarios. Public and private.

Many see the command to use instruments from the word psallo in Ephesians 5:19, since it is not used in the Colossians 3:16 sister passage it would have made such usage local. One church would be different from another. Paul said he taught the same in all churches. It is way more likely psallo does not refer to instruments but making melody with the heart and voice.

Since Grace and melody are used interchangeably in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 we can conclude the word psallo is being used figuratively for songs of grace vs instruments. Grace is accompanying our understanding to worship God in truth. Grace is our instrument, producing an actual melody in joy and thought. The music of the old testament was singing with instrument but without understanding the prophecies in the songs.

1Co 14:15  What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Thus evolving from the Old Testament where the music was heard but the theological meaning not always understood.

It has been argued the word psallo meant to play with an instrument and various sources have been cited referring back to David's time, but when citing those sources they intentionally left out parts. In the days of the apostles the word meant to sing with the voice. See Thayer's lexicon.

Thayer Definition:

1) to pluck off, pull out

2) to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang

2a) to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate

2b) to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc.

2c) to sing to the music of the harp

2d) in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song

Part of Speech: verb

It is used of singing because of the vibration of the vocal chords. In citing sources most do not cite the evolution of the word from instrument to voice.

Also, the usage in the New Testament such as in James 5:13, would contextually be without instruments. James 5:13 uses Psallo for singing, this contextually is without instruments.

The Church of Christ position is that we are FORBIDDEN to use instruments in worship because the New Testament does not specifically AUTHORIZE us to use them. L.R. Wilson's tract, The New Testament Church - It's Music in Worship (Haun Publishing Co.) says the following: "In our efforts to follow the Lord Jesus Christ we are not governed by what He did not forbid, but by what He has authorized."

It is true we do not have authority for instruments, plus if God gave us a way we should do as he taught. God hasn't been silent on what he forbids nor in what he commanded. Yet, I believe as expressed above that we have clear teaching forbidding us from bringing in Judaism and Gentile worship. Thus in a general sense instruments are forbidden if we consider the origin from where they come. They fall under the general idea of Judaism.

To me it isn't just the lack of authority for instruments, it is the context of forbidding Judaism and Idolatrous copies of gentile worship in the church. Both sides are valid reasons. We have no valid authority, we have comments not to incorporate Judaism, and we have positive commands of what he really wants.

I think we have enough to know God's will.

Colossians clearly teaches Christ's death was meant to remove Judaism. If Christ died to remove it, isn't it blasphemous to bring it back?

We have Christ's will expressed in the cross. Those bringing it back are against the cross.

Col 2:14  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Some argue once the cross removed the law, we are free to do as we wish, but it is clear he replaced the law with commands of his own. Thus fulfilling Hebrews

Heb 10:9  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

This is unscriptural logic. There are MANY things that are used in worship services that are not specifically authorized by the Lord Himself. For example, HYMNALS, MICROPHONES, and PITCH PIPES are not authorized in the Bible, but the Church of Christ still uses them in their worship services. There are many things that the Bible doesn't specifically authorize, but this doesn't mean they are forbidden! God gave us all a BRAIN to use when making decisions about such matters, and He has sealed real Christians with His Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in their decision making. One who insists on looking for specific authorization in all things is one who insists on IGNORING the leadership of the Holy Spirit of God, for the scriptures do not specifically mention all things.

Since his main argument is God did not forbid, that needs to be addressed.

God does not have to re-forbid what he authoritatively removed by the cross. He removed the law of Moses and its ordinances, including instruments. If he expressed his will by removing ordinances through the cross why does he need to forbid them over and over.

The church of Christ accepts the truth that not all things they do are authorized specifically. They believe that you can do what you need to too carry out the authorized commands. Flying in planes isn't authorized., but you have to go into all the world somehow.

We have to sing psalms and those songs must be recorded and taught , so we have books.

His objections are really just hypocrisy, since all churches have a list of commandments they consider authoritative. The key is in acknowledging authority vs human command. Singing is a command, playing instruments is not.

Instruments also create a precedent for following the Law of Moses, which has authoritatively been removed. There are still hundreds of denominations who believe we are under the law of Moses in some way, if the Church used instruments we would be a hypocritical example of saying and not practicing what we preach.

By not using instruments we are a shining light that we are no longer bound to the law. We let our light shine before men. This is a command of Christ.

Perhaps his scariest argument is that the Holy Spirit is guiding his decisions, he claims guidance even while disagreeing with the scriptures. He is being guided  by his own brain.

The Bible is very clear in stating that the Lord loves good music of praise and worship, and this DOES include musical instruments. Please check the following references in your Bible and see for yourself. In fact, you will even see that three of these references have musical instruments IN HEAVEN! The references are: Psa. 33:2-4, I Chron. 25:5-6, II Sam. 6:5, I Chron. 16:42, Neh. 12:27, Rev. 5:8, 14:2, 15:2, and Psa. 150.

Israel did not use instruments with her sanctuary/ temple worship from Exodus (1446 B.C). through the book of Judges, up until David. (1000 B.C).This was around 450 years. Why did God not use them during this period if he based his decisions simply on loving them as they say. Since David introduced them after 400 years, it is evidence God had a distinct purpose for them when David introduced the Psalms. Plus, only the Levites were instructed to play while the sacrifice was made. Showing a distinct purpose and a distinct implementation.

Isn't it possible God's purpose through David ended?

He does not use New Testament authority, but the general belief God enjoys music. Notice all of his verses are Old Testament or Revelation. Also, God does not always want instruments, and sometimes God wants it taken away for various reasons.

Isa_14:11  Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

Amo_5:23  Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

One reason to take them away was the reproach of Christ, in being crucified outside the camp.

Heb 13:12  Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Heb 13:13  Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

Heb 13:14  For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Heb 13:15  By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

New Testament worship is meant to bear the reproach of Christ.

We are commanded to offer sacrifice outside of the city, outside Judaism. Instruments were used inside the city.

The Lord's Supper

Like the Roman Catholics, the Church of Christ places far too much emphasis on the Lord's Supper. In the pamphlet, What is Expected of Me as a Member of the Church of Christ? (Standard Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH.), Fred Gardner tells us on page 20 that, "Fidelity to this service almost invariably results in a continuance of a fervent spirit for the Lord and his work. It helps maintain us in our 'first love' (Rev. 2:4), and to keep us doing the 'first works' (Rev. 2:5). When week by week we visualize the broken body and the shed blood of the Master for our sins and the sins of those about us, we do not fall away from a fervent love for Him and an earnest working for the Salvation of those about us--the 'first love' and the 'first works'."

There are verses that teach the Lord's Supper is to be a part of our main assembly For instance I Cor.11:20 says it is the purpose for our coming together or assembling. Acts 20:7 says it was the purpose for their assembly. I Cor.11 establishes the context of keeping the ordinances as delivered and this flows into the Lord's Supper.

v2 -keep ordinances as delivered

v18 -establishes the context of the church as a whole gathering

v20 - establishes what was to be kept at this gathering, the Lord's Supper.

What more evidence is needed the Lord's Supper was part of the main assembly?

1Co 11:1  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

1Co 11:2  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul taught the Corinthians to keep the ordinances as delivered, we can conclude the Lord's Supper was one of these ordinances. They were to keep them without deviation. Evangelicals typically express the belief that they have freedom to deviate, but not true with the Ordinances. Paul corrects them for altering the ordinances.

I Co 11:18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

1Co 11:20  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

The division concerned the purpose of gathering the church, this is the entire body locally. In this gathering they no longer kept the Lord's Supper as given.

Act 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Thus it was the purpose for assembling, the primary purpose.

If he means too much emphasis is placed by partaking of the Lord's Supper then we are happily guilty. Yet, I don't believe a 10-20 minute period of reflection is over doing it. In the Lord's Supper we proclaim the Lord's death, and every week we may have unconverted visitors.

They have a big lesson every week to spark people to conversion and giving money, how is proclaiming Christ through a memorial weekly any different than preaching weekly or a collection weekly? If you alter services just to persuade giving then it becomes covetous.

Now we agree fully that a Christian needs to labor to keep the "first love" and to do the "first works" for the Lord, but this has NOTHING to do with the Lord's Supper! Revelation 2:4-5 say nothing--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--about the Lord's Supper. 

It is true the verse says nothing about the Lord's Supper specifically. It doesn't define the first works at all. It just uses the term "First works". We know that the Lord's Supper was an original command of Christ and was implemented by the Apostles. It is part of the original instructions to the church.

Notice Mr. Gardner's comments about having to "visualize the broken body and the shed blood of the Master" in order to stay in fellowship with Him. Where in the Bible are we told that our fellowship with Christ is based on our visualizing his body and blood? The Bible tells us to walk by FAITH, not by SIGHT (II Cor. 5:7)! Friend, you can observe the Lord's Supper fifty-two weeks a year, but if you haven't been born again then you're lost and going to Hell, and if your sins aren't being confessed to the Lord regularly, then you are OUT of fellowship with Him, in spite of your faithfulness to the Lord's Supper (Jn. 3:1-7; I Jn. 1:1-10).

He is judging, claiming people who take the Lord's Supper are not born again. Why else would they do it except to remember and proclaim the Lord's death. It is amazing how he invents evil motives in everyone that does it every week.

I always thought we did it because we were in fellowship. I Cor. 11 and 12 reflect fellowship within the body through unity of the Lord's Supper and the gift of the Spirit. Both are for unity.

Mr. Gardner also tries to lead his readers to believe that Christians are to observe the Lord's Supper EVERY WEEK. Does the Bible teach this? No, it does not. If you'll read Matthew 26:26-28 and I Corinthians 11:23-26, you will be reading what the Bible has to say about the Lord's Supper, and you will see nothing at all about observing it on a "week by week" basis. I Corinthians 11:26 says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." It is doubtful that God expects us to interpret the words "as often as" to mean "week by week".

The word "often as" is not modifying the term between eating, but ties the same purpose to the supper everytime you eat it. Everytime you eat of it you do shew forth the Lord's death. It is defining purpose not time. Thus the Baptist idea you may eat as often as you like isn't the context of the passage. The greek word used denotes purpose.

The word "often" in a secondary sense usually denotes a short period, daily or weekly. Paul, while with congregations, warned them often. This in context isn't quarterly of yearly.

Php 3:18  For manyG4183 G1063 walkG4043 whomG3739 oftenG4178 I toldG3004 you,G1473 and nowG3568 G1161 evenG2532 weepingG2799 I tell --G3004 theG3588 enemiesG2190 of theG3588 crossG4716 G3588 of Christ;G5547

If he meant quarterly or yearly he could have used a word meaning infrequently. Since he used often he was emphasizing a shorter period that was continual.

So how did the Church of Christ come up with their "week by week" observance? Simply by perverting the scriptures! For example, let's take a look at page 9 of "Why I Am A Member of the Church of Christ," by George Baily. Mr. Baily says that, "The Bible tells us that upon the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread (Acts 20:7). Since the Lord said that the Lord's Supper was observed upon the first day of the week, we gather that this was a weekly affair."

It wasn't at the time of Easter or Passover, or quarterly. Acts 20:7 tells us Paul was going to Jerusalem to be there for the Passover. This was inside the time frame necessary for a quarterly supper before the Passover.Thus the times the Baptists keep it are not biblical.

Our reasons for keeping it weekly are based upon the total evidence. I Corinthians 16:1-3 tells us they assembled on the first day of the week, every week.  The greek word means every week continually. The purpose for coming together was the Lord's Supper.. I Cor.11:20.They broke bread on the first day in Acts 20:7.  They continued in the Apostles doctrine in Acts 2:42-47. The word continue would fit weekly but not quarterly or yearly.

1Co 16:2  Upon the firstG2596 G3391 day of the weekG4521 let every oneG1538 of youG5216 layG5087 byG3844 himG1438 in store,G2343 asG3748 G302 God hath prosperedG2137 him, thatG2443 there beG1096 noG3361 gatheringsG3048 when(G3752) I come.G2064

Keep in mind they may not have used Jewish time keeping after the cross when evaluating Acts 20:7. The Cross did away with Judaism so the new day may have started at midnight. Not twilight.

Mr. Baily just told you that THE LORD said that the Lord's Supper was observed on the first day of the week. Read it again. Now tell me, WHERE exactly did the Lord say that? I'd be delighted to have any Church of Christ member show me WHERE and WHEN the Lord said that. You say, "He said that in Acts 20:7." He DID? I thought He said that they came together to BREAK BREAD, not to observe the Lord's Supper. Mr. Baily wants you to think the two are the same, but they are NOT the same.

I believe they are the same. Jesus in introducing the supper took bread and broke it.

This action became synonymous with the term breaking bread.

Luk 22:19  AndG2532 he tookG2983 bread,G740 and gave thanks,G2168 and brakeG2806 it, andG2532 gaveG1325 unto them,G846 saying,G3004 ThisG5124 isG2076 myG3450 bodyG4983 which is givenG1325 forG5228 you:G5216 thisG5124 doG4160 inG1519 remembranceG364 of me.G1699

Also in Acts 20:7 it does not correspond to supper time such as for a common meal.

I Cor.11:20 says Lord's Supper vs breaking bread, so even if you make an argument from the term breaking bread, I Cor.11 uses Lord's Supper.

They are just being argumentative.

Also he didn't tell you that the original Lord's Supper was observed at NIGHTTIME (Mt. 26:31), and that it was NOT observed on the first day of the week (Sunday). He also forgot to tell you that the practice of BREAKING BREAD was done on a DAILY basis from house to house, not on a weekly basis in the Church of Christ. You find this information in Acts 2:46, and you'll also find that MEAT was involved, not just bread and wine. Why? Because it wasn't the Lord's Supper. There is no specific day in which Christians are told to observe the Lord's Supper, and nowhere in the Bible are we told to observe it on a weekly basis.

Notice in Acts 2 there are two separate cases of breaking bread. One is the Lord's Supper, the other a meal. The Lord's Supper is not associated with any time period but "continuing".

Thus he is applying the wrong verse to the Lord's Supper.

Act 2:42  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  (public worship)

Act 2:43  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,(private) did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The first breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper. They continued in it. The second breaking of bread is the sharing of food to get the church started. They shared their possessions to support those who came for the Passover and stayed to be taught more.

The Lord loves His church and He gives us liberty (II Cor. 3:17) to make certain decisions for ourselves. This is evident in the fact that Paul wrote "as often as" in I Corinthians 11:26.

As I said above he will claim liberty, but Paul did not give liberty concerning the ordinances.

1Co 11:2  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Again, the word "often as" is related to purpose not  primarily time. It does not give us freedom to change purpose, but keeps us in the same purpose every time we do it. He is misusing the word. It comes from two different words used together.

πολλάκις

pollakis

pol-lak'-is

Multiplicative adverb from G4183; many times, that is, frequently: - oft (-en, -en-times, -times).

Total KJV occurrences: 18

This does not match longer time periods like monthly or quarterly, and sometimes signifies equal periods.

γάρ

gar

gar

A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

Total KJV occurrences: 1068

This is shown in the ABP greek version.

Resurrections and Judgments

The Church of Christ believes in a GENERAL resurrection and judgment for all people, both saved and lost at the same time. This perversion of truth is known as A-Millennialism (No Millennium). The first seven verses of Revelation chapter twenty speak of a coming one thousand year reign of Christ and His saints on this earth. This reign immediately follows the Second Coming of Christ, which occurs in Revelation 19:11-21.

The church reigning with Christ does not imply Christ coming to earth, for Jesus had power in both places, see Matt.28:18. The Revelation he quotes does not use the term "on earth". He adds that idea himself.

He believes in the rapture theory, premillinialist, we do not agree with the teaching. He says the reign of Christ is coming. Christ and Peter say it is here.

Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Act 2:30  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Act 2:31  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

this he has fulfilled.

Act 2:32  This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Act 2:33  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Act 2:36  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

He is currently over his messianic kingdom. They simply deny Christ reigning today.

A-Millennialism cannot be correct, because Revelation 20:1-7 clearly tells us that there WILL BE a one thousand year reign. To say that there will be no Millennium is to simply DENY the word of God.

Rev 20 says the martys would reign with him,

Rev 20 does not say Christ will reign from earth. II Thessalonians even says we will be caught up together in the clouds, thus no presence of Christ on earth is mentioned.

It does say martyrs will reign with him 1000 years, but much of the book is symbolic, so we do not know if the 1000 years is literal. Baptists love to use a day is a year theory for time lines, but if applied here would be 365,000 years. 1000 years is likely a symbolic number reflecting the age of time on earth.

Luk 1:33  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Since Luke wrote Christ's kingdom would be without end, meaning till the end of time, there is no justification for taking the 1000 years literally.

Also Paul said we could reign today. This corresponds to Revelation 1 where we are kings and priests.

1Co 4:8  Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

Paul says Christ is currently reigning over the gentiles.

Rom 15:12  And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Justin Martyr in AD 150 in writing from Rome believed in a reign of Christ on earth, but admitted others disagreed with that conclusion. There were two points of view already established in AD 150.

The first resurrection of Rev 19 & 20 could be our new birth in baptism, we die with Christ and are raised to walk in newness of life. This is when we would begin to reign with Christ. The second resurrection is at Christ's coming.

We live and reign with Christ through the judgments of the apostles. This is the point, Revelation sees the martyrs living through the apostles judgments.

Rev 20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

True Bible-believers take the Pre-Millennial view, which is the correct view, according to the word of God. Notice the order of events in Revelation: The Church Age ends at 3:22, and the church is not mentioned again until 22:16. John's going up to Heaven in 4:1-2 pictures the calling out of the Christians, immediately following the Church Age of chapters two and three ( The church's departure from the earth is also mentioned in I Thess. 4:13-18 and I Cor. 15:51-52). Revelation chapters 6 through 18 cover the Tribulation period that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24:21. This is when the Antichrist will rise to power and deceive those who were not caught up to meet the Lord because they were not true believers (I Thess. 4:16-18, Lk. 17:35-36, II Thess. 2:11). Then the first ten verses of Revelation 19 cover the events in Heaven immediately preceding the Lord's Second Coming, which follows in verses 11 through 21. After that, we see the one thousand year reign of Christ and His saints showing up in 20:1-7. This is the promised Kingdom of the Old Testament (Isa. 2:1-4; Dan. 7:27). Satan is doomed in Revelation 20:10. The wicked are judged at the White Throne Judgment in verses 1115 and cast into the lake of fire. Eternity begins with chapters 21 and 22. Now this is the order in which the Lord reveals these events to us. If He'd intended for us to adapt some other interpretation then He'd surely have told us. The Bible is perfectly clear in stating that the 1000 year reign of Christ will come immediately AFTER the Second Coming. Anyone can see that.

Really, anyone can see that? The term "church age" as he uses it isn't in Revelation. It is a made up idea. Notice he believes the first resurrection took place in John's lifetime, when he went up into heaven.

3:22, and the church is not mentioned again until 22:16. John's going up to Heaven in 4:1-2 pictures the calling out of the Christians, immediately following the Church Age of chapters two and three ( The church's departure from the earth is also mentioned in I Thess. 4:13-18 and I Cor. 15:51-52).

The first resurrection and the 1000 year reign involves the martyrs who lived and reigned with Christ. Their souls were preserved and their work lived on in the church. Likely the apostles and others of the early church.

Rev 20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Remember Jesus appointed the Apostles a kingdom and they would make judgments.

Luk 22:29  And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Luk 22:30  That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The 1000 year reign is for those who sat upon thrones and made judgment. Those who were Martyred.

Now read this incredible remark by a Church of Christ author: "The Bible certainly does not teach that there will be a 1000 year period AFTER the second coming of Christ." This comes from page 1 of The Rapture, Tribulation, and Pre-Millennialism, by Grover Stevens (Stevens Publications, Lubbock, TX.). He arrives at this false conclusion by perverting II Peter 3:9-10 and saying that "the day of the Lord" means "the day of his coming," meaning ONE SPECIFIC DAY in which the Lord returns and burns up the world, leaving no time frame for a 1000 year reign on the earth.

I don't see why it is incredible we would disagree with someone who denies Christ is currently reigning. The fact we reign with Christ isn't hard to understand.

The 1000 year reign of Christ is for the martyrs. It is after their death, so why would it be on earth?

Did you notice that Mr. Stevens doesn't say anything at all about II Peter 3:8? He IGNORES verse 8 and quotes verses 9 and 10 OUT OF CONTEXT. Why did he skip verse 8? Because verse 8 INCLUDES the 1000 year reign!! Verse 8 tells us that one day is as a THOUSAND YEARS in God's eyes, so the "day of the Lord" can very well INCLUDE the 1000 year reign! The Church of Christ ASSUMES that the "day of the Lord" is only a 24 hour day, but the Bible never says this a single time. Therefore, the "day of the Lord" can begin with the Second Coming and end a thousand years later with the White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15.

If the first resurrection involves the martyrs during the early church, why argue about how long a day is. We know that the judgment will take place in a day, not an era. Actually an hour.

Joh 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Joh 5:26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Joh 5:27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Joh 5:28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Joh 5:29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus mentions two hours, one where life can begin by hearing the gospel played out over thousands of years. The other the resurrection which will be future and will take place in a single hour.

How do we know this is so? That's easy. Revelation 20:5 (which is NEVER quoted by the Church of Christ) speaks of a "first resurrection" for the Christians BEFORE the 1000 year reign. Lost people are not brought up to the White Throne Judgment until AFTER the 1000 year reign in Revelation 20:11-15, and this is called the "second death." So there is a "first resurrection" for the saved BEFORE the Millennium, and there is a "second death" for the lost AFTER the Millennium. The saints are resurrected BEFORE the Millennium so they can reign with Christ DURING the Millennium, but the Church of Christ OMITS the Millennium altogether, making the First Resurrection and the Second Death one and the same. By doing this they create a "general judgment" for everyone, which is entirely unscriptural.

It clearly says the first resurrection is the martyrs, they will reign with Christ, then the second resurrection. How does this fit into the rapture? Those reigning with Christ as martyrs have died and gone on. If dead and in Hades how are they possibly raptured from earth?

Water Baptism and Salvation

Of the many heresies taught by the Church of Christ, Baptismal Regeneration is probably the most well known, and also the most harmful. This is the ancient pagan belief that a person must be baptized in water in order to receive cleansing from sin and the right to enter Heaven.

I haven't figured out how something authored by Christ, given by the Holy Spirit, confirmed through the Apostles is harmful.

Let's begin with page 2 of Delton Haun's tract, Must One Be Baptized to Go to Heaven? Haun says the following: "As we begin this brief study let us note the question concerns us, not Abraham, nor the thief on the cross. These men lived and died in past ages before Christ's death and before the terms of pardon were announced publicly on the day of Pentecost for all who lived in the Christian age."

Haun states a truth, neither Abraham nor the thief were forgiven under the New Covenant.

Since Jesus had not risen the thief could not be justified by New Testament faith.

Also, at the moment Jesus said the thief would be in Paradise, he had not died yet. If he had died he couldn't have told him.

Thus, at the time of the pronouncement to the thief he could not be justified by faith in Christ's death or his resurrection. Two necessary elements in the New Testament. He only believed Christ would be given a kingdom.

Applying the thief as a precedent for how we are saved in the New Testament, this would mean we are saved without knowledge and faith in Christ's death or resurrection. This is a giant theological heresy.

Notice how quickly Haun attempts to avoid the issue of the thief on the cross. This is because the thief on the cross was saved WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED (Lk. 23:42-43). Was this really a "past age" before Christ's death or before the terms of pardon were announced publicly? No, it wasn't. The thief died AFTER Jesus died (Jn. 19:31-33), for no one ever died in His presence. The thief died in THIS PRESENT AGE, not in a past age, and the "terms of pardon" were made very clear a long time before Acts 2. The Gospel of John points out over and over again that one is saved by BELIEVING on Christ (Jn. 1:12, 3:16, 3:36, 5:24), not by water baptism. In fact, AFTER Jesus had came up from the dead and returned to Heaven, John tells us that we can have life through Christ's name by BELIEVING on Him, not by getting baptized in water (Jn. 20:31).

He does not know if the thief was baptized or not. The thief was taught the material associated with John's baptism, that of Christ's kingdom, he was a religious Jew who turned to sin. On the cross he demonstrated his faith in Christ and his kingdom, as John had taught. He probably was baptized.

Mar 1:3  The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mar 1:4  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mar 1:5  And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mar 1:6  And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

Mar 1:7  And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

Mar 1:8  I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Baptists teach such a sinner would not be baptized, but notice the text says.

"Confessing their sins"

All baptized in John were sinners. The thief was no different. He would have had a couple years to lapse back into sin, but Jesus saved him despite his lapse it seems. Some may argue the thief was a mortal sinner, but Jesus said all sins would be forgiven, but blasphemy of the Spirit. Jesus can forgive stealing.

Since the text does not say the thief was baptized or not, it is probable the story was not preserved to bear on that question. Jesus would not give it to over turn New Testament justification through the cross , the resurrection, and the new birth in water and Spirit.

The term "believing on" is used of believing a prophet sent by God, thus the proof is in heeding a prophets words.

Haun tells us on page three of his tract that "be baptized" means to be "immersed in water." This is where ALL Church of Christ people err so greatly. Church of Christ members are taught that there is only ONE kind of baptism: WATER baptism. The Bible teaches otherwise, for the Bible says that there are SOME baptisms which are NOT water baptisms. The Church of Christ wants you to think that all baptisms in the Bible are WATER baptisms, for this will cause you to think that Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3-4 are referring to water baptisms when they are NOT.

I am certain he is lying, COC people are taught about all of the baptism he mentions. We rightly divide the word in my opinion. We have taught on the different baptisms for a long time.

Coffmans Commentary, a COC writer plainly teaches 7 baptisms in Matthew 3 section,

Verse 11

I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

Seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament, three of which are mentioned in this verse. They are:

1. The baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2).

2. The baptism of sufferings (Mark 10:38,39).

3. The baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29).

4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, see above).

5. The baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11, see above).

6. The baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3).

7. The baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15,16; Matthew 28:18-20).SIZE>

In spite of the fact that all these baptisms find mention in the New Testament, there is, nevertheless, but ONE baptism in force. See Ephesians 4:4. To determine which baptism is in force, or which one is IT, one only needs to observe these facts: No. 1, above, applied only to Jews. No. 2 is altogether figurative, being in no sense a ceremony. No. 3 was a practice of non-Christians as witnessed by the third person pronouns and was never connected in any way with the Christian religion. Nos. 4,5 are both promises of what God will do and cannot be obeyed in any sense. No. 6, John's baptism, was clearly and categorically set aside by the baptism of him that is greater than John, even Christ. See Acts 19:3. Thus, the ONE baptism of Ephesians can be none other than the baptism of the Great Commission.

end quote

We aren't as ignorant and one dimensional as he wants his readers to believe. We made our decisions about baptism with understanding of these 7 baptisms.

Also, we differentiate between baptism of the Spirit, which occurred in Acts 2 and Acts 10, from the measure of the Spirit all Christians receive. Peter only recalls two instances of baptism of the Spirit.

Act 11:15  And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Peter seems to tie this phenomenon to only two events. Thus we have only two direct scriptural examples of this phenomenon. We cannot confirm that the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 and the Seal of the Spirit in Ephesians 1:13 are actually baptism of the spirit.

There are three post resurrection verses discussing the Spirit gift given to all Christians. They say it is given to all.

Acts 2:38

Ephesians 1:13

I Corinthians 12:13

Since there are only two examples of Holy Spirit baptism, it is likely not the same thing. One is for all and the other limited. There is really only one example of Holy Spirit baptism, that of Acts 2:1-19. This in Acts 2 was perfect tense, a one time outpouring that manifested itself twice in visible gifts.  There was only one outpouring.

There is no evidence the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with outward manifestations of gifts, was meant for every single Christian. We only have 2 examples that have physical manifestations, that are given by God directly, administered by Christ himself. We have to be careful not to tie this to all Christians and for all ages.

Since we have the physical manifestation of tongues and prophecy in Holy Spirit baptism, and tongues and prophecy would cease from I Cor.11, it is likely not for all Christians.

He denies multiple references to baptism are water baptism. He is in denial. Galations 3:27 cannot be Holy Spirit baptism because the Spirit is given after this baptism according to Galations 4:6.

1. We are first made children in baptism by faith.

2. We receive the Spirit after becoming children.

Gal 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 4:6  And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,

There is one baptism which is far more important than water baptism, and this baptism is the SPIRIT baptism that the new Christian receives when he receives Christ as Saviour. I Corinthians 12:13 says, "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body . . . " The Spirit of God baptizes, or immerses, the new believer into the spiritual body of Christ. This has nothing to do with water baptism, for there is no water anywhere in I Corinthians 12:13. So, to be baptized is NOT the same as being immersed in water. Immersion in water is only ONE KIND of baptism.

We don't consider one baptism more important than another since Jesus said we must be born of water and Spirit. John 3:5 Him saying one is less important is just his opinion, seeking a way to dismiss water from the process. Jesus taught both water and Spirit were necessary.

Also, he makes the Holy Spirit the baptizer, whereas in Holy Spirit baptism Christ would be the baptizer. This is clear since John said Christ would "baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

I am pretty certain he is using the verse different than the greek allows.

He doesn't acknowledge  the phrase "by one spirit", by (ev) is normally instrumental and not accusative.  The Noun attatched to ev is never the one providing the action, but is the instrument of the action. It denotes a fixed position or fixed instrument. We are not being baptized into the Spirit since the Gk. word eis is not used. We are baptized into the body. The Spirit is not the baptizer here, but can be the administrator.

Sometimes ev is translated "with", such as baptized with water Matt.3:11 and Mark 1:8 in some versions.. The ASV and APB translate "in water" and "in the Holy Spirit" in those two verses. The Douay Rheims and EMTV versions alternate between with water and in water in the two verses. Since we don't have a consensus it is difficult to derive meaning without examining context.

Some greek scholars want to change the translation to "with" one Spirit we were all baptized". I am not convinced they have a valid reason. Some translations use "in one Spirit". So based on the translation it could be "by one Spirit", "with one spirit", "in one Spirit".

The original translators of the KJV settled on "by one spirit", believing the baptism here was water baptism, and the Spirit is the administrator of water baptism.

The Catholic DR bible translated it "with one spirit", but modern Catholic versions use "in one spirit". The American Council of Bishops applied baptism here to water baptism as well.

* [12:12–26] The image of a body is introduced to explain Christ’s relationship with believers (1 Cor 12:12). 1 Cor 12:13 applies this model to the church: by baptism all, despite diversity of ethnic or social origins, are integrated into one organism. 1 Cor 12:14–26 then develop the need for diversity of function among the parts of a body without threat to its unity.

Some versions  when speaking of water baptism translate ev  (with) water while others translate (in) water. Those believing in pouring like with, those believing in immersion prefer in. The Bible versions seem to translate by theological position, not by the actual language. The language is broad enough to support both scenarios, but I believe only one scenario is true.

Mat 3:6  And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

ABP Version

Mat 3:11  Forasmuch as IG1473 G3303 immerseG907 youG1473 inG1722 waterG5204 forG1519 repentance,G3341 the oneG3588 G1161 [2afterG3694 3meG1473 1comingG2064 5stronger thanG2478 6meG1473 4is];G1510.2.3 of whomG3739 I am notG3756 G1510.2.1 fitG2425 [2theG3588 3sandalsG5266 1to bear].G941 HeG1473 shall immerse youG1473 G907 inG1722 [2spiritG4151 1holy]G39 andG2532 fire --G4442

Some do not like "BY" because it could imply the Holy Spirit is the baptizer as this writer mistakingly teaches, those without Greek backgrounds may  twist it, but I believe the Holy Spirit is simply instrumental as the deliverer of the doctrine to the Church. One might argue Jesus gave the great commission and not the Spirit, but remember Jesus was anointed with the Spirit to set us at Liberty. The Spirit was with him.

If you view the Spirit as the administrator and not the baptizer it makes sense. Notice that after Christ's departure he gave commands by the Spirit.

Act 1:2  Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

Thus the command of baptism could be properly described as "by one Spirit".

1Co 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

This is not foreign to Baptists who are often in agreement with me. Milton quotes another Baptist in his tract on the Baptist Brider heresy. The Baptist Brider agreed with me.

I once had a Baptist Brider call me about this matter. When I quoted him I Corinthians 12:13, he told me that the verse is speaking of water baptism which is "spirit led." IT DIDN'T SAY "SPIRIT LED." Besides, John's water baptism was "spirit led," but he still spoke of a FUTURE Spirit baptism by Christ - in contrast to HIS waterbaptism!

It does not say Spirit led,  but it does say "By one Spirit", which is very similar and has close to the same meaning. See below how this is similar.

We drink into one spirit by drinking what he teaches and receiving his promises. In this verse we seem to have water baptism and the spirit gift. Baptism is in water and brings us into the body individually, but we are united together in drinking all of one Spirit. We all receive God's gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is theologically important, if a person is made part of the body in baptism, without any visible gifts in particular, we are made members uniformly in grace. Therefore those afterward given gifts or greater gifts or offices cannot boast. All are made members through the act of simple baptism. God is truly genius in applying baptism in this way.

This is not saying our baptism is Holy Spirit baptism, it is saying the source of baptism is the Holy Spirit.

If you go back up to I Corinthians 12:3 you will see that the word "by" is used of enablement. The Holy Spirit is the source of our confession. Paul is making a distinction between false Spirits and the spirit of God. He makes two points, no one speaking by the Spirit calls Jesus accursed (The Jewish teaching). Paul in essence is saying the Jewish modern prophets weren't speaking by the Holy Spirit.

Thus, Paul is showing who is actually enabled by the Holy Spirit. This chapter has several "By" statements.

By one spirit we call Jesus Lord

By the Spirit the word of wisdom.

faith by the same Spirit

healing by the same Spirit

By one Spirit baptized

These all abide in the Spirit.

Those calling Jesus lord could not have done so without the Spirit's enablement as he convinced the world of Christ's Sonship. This is Paul's message that the Holy Spirit was the enabler of Christian truth and doctrine.

1Co 12:3  Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit gave Peter the requirement of baptism in Acts 2 and he bound it upon the Church. It came "BY" the Holy Spirit.

To me the phrase "by one spirit we are all baptized into one body" is not Holy Spirit Baptism apart from water baptism, it is giving glory to the Spirit and pronouncing the unity of baptismal doctrine. By one spirit we are baptized into one body.

This fits Ephesians 4:1-4, One Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism.

The Holy Spirit produces a unified doctrine in a unified body. Our baptism is single source.

Neither do you have good spirits and bad producing truth.

Also, if you translate ev as "in", which is acceptable,

"in one spirit are we all baptized into one body"

It would denote the fixed position of the Holy Spirit before the baptism, so they would not be the same.

compare

Mat 22:43  He saithG3004 unto them,G846 HowG4459 thenG3767 doth DavidG1138 inG1722 spiritG4151 callG2564 himG846 Lord,G2962 saying,G3004

Mar 12:36  For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

In the Spirit implies a fixed position under the Spirit's control or guidance. By the Spirit we learn Jesus is Lord.

The second part of the verse does seem to indicate the gift of the Holy Spirit as Vincent Word Studies concludes. There are multiple denominational leaders in agreement. The Holy Spirit gave baptism and is the intended gift in lieu of baptism.

Vincent

The verb means originally to give to drink, from which comes the sense of to water or irrigate. The former is invariably the sense in the gospels and Revelation; the latter in 1Co_3:6-8, and by some here. The reference is to the reception of the Spirit in baptism. Omit into before one Spirit. Made to drink (ἐποτίσθημεν)

Wesley

For by that one Spirit, which we received in baptism, we are all united in one body. Whether Jews or gentiles - Who are at the greatest distance from each other by nature. Whether slaves or freemen - Who are at the greatest distance by law and custom. We have all drank of one Spirit - In that cup, received by faith, we all imbibed one Spirit, who first inspired, and still preserves, the life of God in our souls.1 Corinthians 12:13

Henry

I. By telling us that one body may have many members, and that the many members of the same body make but one body (1Co_12:12): As the body is one, and hath many members, and all members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ; that is, Christ mystical, as divines commonly speak. Christ and his church making one body, as head and members, this body is made up of many parts or members, yet but one body; for all the members are baptized into the same body, and made to drink of the same Spirit, 1Co_12:13. Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, are upon a level in this: all are baptized into the same body, and made partakers of the same Spirit. Christians become members of this body by baptism: they are baptized into one body. The outward rite is of divine institution, significant of the new birth, called therefore the washing of regeneration, Tit_3:5. But it is by the Spirit, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, that we are made members of Christ's body. It is the Spirit's operation, signified by the outward administration, that makes us members. And by communion at the other ordinance we are sustained; but then it is not merely by drinking the wine, but by drinking into one Spirit. The outward administration is a means appointed of God for our participation in this great benefit; but it is baptism by the Spirit, it is internal renovation and drinking into one Spirit, partaking of his sanctifying influence from time to time, that makes us true members of Christ's body, and maintains our union with him. Being animated by one Spirit makes Christians one body. Note, All who have the spirit of Christ, without difference, are the members of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free; and none but such. And all the members of Christ make up one body; the members many, but the body one. They are one body, because they have one principle of life; all are quickened and animated by the same Spirit.

Almost all leaders from the 1500's to 1950 viewed the first part as water baptism, and the second as the Holy Spirit.

Henry's view is unique in that we enter the body in water baptism, but are made distinct members by the Holy Spirit.

John Gill is one who teaches that it is Spirit baptism, but he concludes Galations 3:27 and Romans 6:3-4 are water baptism, along with all of its effects. He agrees with Milton on some points but disagrees on others.

To insist that all baptisms are water baptisms is to openly deny the word of God. John the Baptist clearly spoke of THREE different baptisms in ONE VERSE. He said in Matthew 3:11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:"

No one ever said all baptisms in the Bible are with water, but the ones he is denying are. We believe in teaching all baptisms correctly. Not just dismissing baptism on a whim.

Heb 6:1  Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2  Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

The late baptist Matthew Henry agreed they were water baptism. This guy just rejects his own past.

Now, you've just seen THREE separate baptisms in one verse. Read it again, just to be sure. There are three baptisms in one verse, so it is unscriptural to assume that all baptisms are WATER baptisms. It is unscriptural to say that "be baptized" means to be "immersed in water," because to be baptized means to be immersed in ANYTHING. An immersion in fire is a baptism in fire; an immersion in water is a baptism in water, and

an immersion in the Holy Ghost is a baptism in the Holy Ghost. When we read the words "baptize" and "baptism" we should NOT immediately assume that we are reading about a WATER baptism.

The baptisms he is contending against are water baptism. As shown above, we can prove it by Gal.3:27 & Gal.4:6.

In those passages redemption preceeds adoption and adoption proceeds the Holy Spirit. If baptized into his death and subsequently redeemed, how in the world could it be Holy Spirit baptism.

Likewise, when we see the word "water," we should not immediately assume that we are reading about baptism, because we probably aren't (For example, the water in John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism.).

We should not assume but prove, that is why we disagree with him.

Now, let's look at a few "proof texts" used by the Church of Christ to "prove" that water baptism is essential for Salvation. A famous one is found in Mark 16:16, where the Lord Jesus Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." According to the Church of Christ, one will be damned if he is not baptized. Haun says on page 5 of his tract that "Jesus is pointing out what it takes to be saved. He describes the kind of man who is pardoned. That man is one who believes and is baptized. Jesus did not say that the man who believes shall be saved or that the man who is baptized shall be saved. He said both belief (faith) and baptism are essential. It is like saying two plus two equals four. Faith plus baptism equals salvation."

Jesus spoke Matthew 16:16, not the Church of Christ. We quote Jesus

Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. .

The Church of Christ specializes in confusing people by taking verses out of context and IGNORING the rest of the Bible. Did you read verse seventeen, which speaks of the apostolic signs of casting out devils and speaking with new tongues? Does the Church of Christ practice these signs? No, they don't. Do they practice verse eighteen by drinking deadly things, taking up serpents, and laying hands on the sick? No, they don't. Then why would they steal verse sixteen from its context and then leave the next two verses alone?

Because the commission and following promises were given to the apostles. The signs of the apostolic office ceased.

https://sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home/those-who-believe

The truth of the matter is that Mark 16:16 does NOT teach Baptismal Regeneration IN or OUT of it's proper context, and it certainly does not teach that "faith plus baptism equals salvation"! The verse plainly says, ". . . . he that believeth not shall be damned." One is damned for NOT BELIEVING. No one is damned for not being baptized. It is the sin of UNBELIEF that damns the lost soul to Hell, and this is very well confirmed by many portions of scripture, which Haun chooses to ignore in his tract:

Faith through baptism saves, not faith plus baptism as if they are two different things.

In Mark 16:15-16 He who "believes not" points back to the entire phrase "He who believes and is baptized"

If you don't believe in Christ and baptism you are condemned, for Christ commanded it.

The Greek language makes it clear we must believe the complete phrase "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved".. The word "and" is copulative when a single article is used to modify two words. The "believes not" points back to the entire sentence and both verbs because of the single article

His argument is based upon ignorance or denial of the Greek language.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12.

It does not say you are sons at belief, but belief gives you the right to become. Becoming a son is through faith, not at faith. This means living openly for Christ. If you read further there were those who believed whom Jesus was but Jesus did not embrace. them The Greek when eis follows belief actually can mean "believe into his name" or "toward his name". The context lets us know if they believed towards or actually believed into his name.

Thus, we believe toward his name in belief in him as a person, and when we comply with his will our will has entered his will, we then believe into his name.

Joh 2:23  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in (towards) his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Joh 2:24  But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

The context here is believing in Christ's name without openly complying in obedience.

Belief only without believing into his name through his message did not save these people. Jesus did not accept people based upon belief only. God justifies through faith, but chooses to do this when the person is obedient in faith.

Baptists usually contend that any true believer will do God's will by being baptized, but it is not true, the message can be choked out by different cares. Ala the parable of the soils.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:15-18.

John 3:16 is explaining why you must be born of water and Spirit, not dismissing the requirement. He is using it backwards.

The word believe goes back to being born of water and Spirit. Jesus describes teaching Nicodemus earthly things and heavenly things, the word believe references both.The verse sounds like it is believing in Jesus in English. The Gk word eis translated in also means into.

The force is you believe into him in being born of water. The antecedent to believe is Christ's teaching on the new birth through water is upon Christ's name.The faith the New Birth requires one be taught Christ's name.

Matthew 28:18-20 baptized into the name

This is equal to being baptized into Moses. I Cor.10:1-3

This is also the same as being baptized into Christ. Romans 6:3-4 Gal.3:26-27

The context is believing into Christ's name, not simply believing in Christ as a person.

because he hath not believed in (into) the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:15-18.

Since baptism is upon the name of Jesus Christ, trusting in his name, it fits into John 3:16 perfectly.

Act 2:38  And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in (upon) the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You will find that many of the believe passages he uses has the greek word eis (into), we believe into Christ. or toward Christ This includes commands such as baptism. In Greek the context of belief can be several verses behind the word, or even chapters behind. The word believe covers anything contained in the message. Since born of water is in the message it is the context of believe.

"He that believeth on (actually into) the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36.

This verse helps our cause, it ties believing into him with believing his message. Including being born of water as Jesus affirmed earlier in the chapter.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life; and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24.

This verse ties believing to hearing his word. It requires both believing Christ's word and believing in the Father.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47.

"Believeth on me",  is actually "believeth into me".

The translation of eis as in or into is acceptable, it is the same thing in most cases. In English we can say "went in the house" or "went into the house" without being incorrect.

". . . . Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30-31.

This verse uses the word eis as well. "Believe into Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Since he showed initial faith by asking what he must do, he wasn't saved at initial faith.

Then they spoke the word of the lord to them.

Based upon the word he was baptized.

Having believed into the Lord Jesus Christ is a reference to them being baptized. The context of believed is the word spoken to them.

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Romans 4:5.

This is one verse epi is used instead of eis, but it is speaking of believing in the Father, it isn't a reference to Christ. The Father justifies the ungodly through the Gospel.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9-10

This isn't faith alone, since in Romans 6 they are acknowledged to be baptized. Their confession is unto salvation. Thus after baptism we must have a continual confession. It isn't a one time prayer or one time confession.

Belief in the resurrection must continue as well.

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scriptures, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." I Peter 2:6.

Peter isn't faith only here, just read the next verses where he mentions the disobedient.

1Pe 2:6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1Pe 2:7  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1Pe 2:8  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

A little later in the same letter Peter says baptism saves.

1Pe 3:20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25-26.

The greek word eis is used here twice, "believe into", it is the practice of Christ's will as expressed in his word. It is taking the steps to be justified in Christ.

Now, who in their right mind would choose to IGNORE these plain and simple Salvation verses by charging to Mark 16:16 and trying to confuse matters? Any confusion that may have arisen in Mark 16:16 was cleared up in the above verses. Whatever the Church of Christ THINKS that Mark 16:16 means is immaterial. According to the scripture that you've just read, a sinner is saved by BELIEVING on Jesus Christ, and a sinner is damned by NOT believing on Jesus Christ. That's perfectly clear to any honest reader.

I have shown the correct usage of John 3:16 and other believe passages support baptism and an obedient faith.

In Mark 16:16 the water baptism FOLLOWS the individual's belief as a good testimony, just as taking a seat follows stepping onto a school bus. The key element in one's Salvation is his BELIEF ON CHRIST ALONE. Water baptism is important, and it should always FOLLOW Salvation as a picture of the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ, but it cannot save anyone.

Baptism is the process into salvation, not after salvation. His theology is human invention.

the order of the verse is belief-baptism-salvation.

He only acknowledges half the order.

The Church of Christ also uses Acts 2:38 for their beliefs about baptism: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." About this verse, Delton Haun's tract says the following on page 7: "Peter said it is necessary for men in this age to be baptized to obtain pardon. The preposition 'of' means 'in order to' and is so rendered in some translations. (Living Oracles, Anderson, Macnight, Goodspeed) The English Revised and American Revised say 'unto.'" Notice how the Church of Christ must refer to OTHER TRANSLATIONS in order to find support for their false teachings! This is a standard practice among the cults: ESTABLISH MORE THAN ONE AUTHORITY SO THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE THE ONE YOU PREFER AT ANY GIVEN TIME. We will stick with the Book that God uses, the King James Bible, and we'll show you WHY Acts 2:38 does not teach that a person has to baptized in water in order to be saved.

Both versions support us, in order to and unto both point to the reason it is done.

First of all, the same Peter who is preaching in Acts 2:38 later learns a few things about Salvation that he did NOT know in Acts 2. We know this is true, because in Acts 15:11 Peter says something very different: ". . . . through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. . ." In Acts 15:11 Peter says nothing about baptism. Why not? If it's so important, why didn't he mention it? Very simple. At the time of Acts 2:38, Peter didn't fully understand Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). God had to reveal this to Peter, and, by the time we reach Acts 15:11, Peter gives us God's Salvation plan for today. Why is it that we never hear the Church of Christ quoting Acts 15:11? If God didn't stop with Acts 2:38, then why did the Church of Christ?

I can't believe he disrespects an apostle. He refers to Peter as ignorant.

Salvation by grace and salvation through baptism are not incompatible.

Acts 15 asks about keeping the law, not about baptism. We are saved by grace because Christ released us from the law. Grace dismissed us from the law in justification, not baptism.

Act 15:5  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Why argue against baptism when the question isn't against baptism.

Also, they were already baptized into Christ, the issue was whether you had to keep the law after initial salvation.

Secondly, please notice that there are NO GENTILES (non Jews, like you and I) in Acts 2:38. Every individual present is a commandment keeping, Sabbath observing, temple worshipping Jew. Being gathered at Jerusalem on Pentecost, a Jewish feast day, these Jews heard Peter's stirring message about Christ, the One they had crucified. They came to realize that they had crucified their Messiah. They had already been told how to be saved in verse twenty-one (which the Church of Christ never mentions), and they were "pricked in their heart" in verse thirty-seven. So they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Notice that they did NOT ask, "What must I do to be saved?" (The answer to THAT question is found in Acts 16:31, not Acts 2:38.) These Jews wanted to know what to do in light of the fact that they had crucified their Messiah. This is a NATIONAL situation concerning Israel, not an individual situation dealing with lost sinners. No one in the chapter asks how to be saved.

Verse21 which he mentions, 'he who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", isn't faith alone and it isn't the sinners prayer.

The term is used by Moses when seeking God's opinion about a matter.

Properly it means to seek God's judgment about salvation, so when they asked "men and brethren what shall we do" they were taking the steps of verse 21. Asking Christ's opinion.

Peter responded,

Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

https://sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home/call-upon-the-lord

The third thing to notice about Acts 2:38 is that the term "for" does not always mean "in order to," like the Church of Christ teaches. A good example of this is found in Luke 15:14 where the Lord Jesus tells the cleansed leper to go and offer a sacrifice "for thy cleansing." The man wasn't offering a sacrifice IN ORDER TO be cleansed, because he had already been cleansed in verse 13. He was offering a sacrifice BECAUSE OF the cleansing that he already had. Therefore, the word "for" sometimes means "because of". For example, if you go to jail for stealing, is it IN ORDER for you to steal, or is it BECAUSE OF the stealing that you've already done? Also notice how "remission of sins" FOLLOWS belief in Acts 10:43, and PRECEDES water baptism.

He is confused again, the sacrifice was for a cleansing to be ceremonially clean to enter the temple. Jews when cleansed of leaprosy were required to make an offering to be ceremonially clean.

This is what Jesus referred too, so eis was "for" not "because of".

Number four, the Jews were told to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," but WE were told to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in Matthew 28:19. Acts 2:38 is obviously a special baptism for the first century Jews who had rejected Christ. They were told to be baptized in His name to show that they now RECEIVED Him.

Hypothetical, but he admits they received the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism.

Also, please take note of the fact that the Jews of Acts chapter two received the Holy Ghost AFTER they were baptized. However, the believing Gentiles of Acts 10:44 received the Holy Ghost BEFORE they were baptized, and Peter was preaching there too, just as he was in Acts 2:38. Why didn't Peter tell the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 the same thing that he told the Jews in Acts 2:38? Answer: GOD DIDN'T GIVE HIM A CHANCE! God went ahead and sent the Holy Spirit before anything was said about baptism, because He didn't want anyone confusing baptism with Salvation.

The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as a sign for unbelievers in Peter's message. Unbelievers who were in Cornelius house and unbelievers accompanying Peter. Signs produced belief as the message was given, that way all baptized were believers.

Once belief was established through them glorifying God he commanded them to be baptized.

Now, this reveals to us a great truth about the Book of Acts: It is a Book of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. God reveals more and more about salvation by grace through faith as the Book progresses. This should be expected when one considers the

fact that this is the first century when God's dealings with man change from law to grace. Peter learns a valuable lesson about grace in Acts 10:14-15, and by Acts 15:11 he is well established in the doctrine of Salvation by Grace.

Peter already knew baptism was a part of grace, he wasn't ignorant in Acts 2.

The writer certainly sees Peter's understanding of grace very backwards. Peter's view of grace was the purification of the heart so that the people would believe the gospel.

Cornelius' heart and his households were already purified. The work God did on their hearts before they even met Peter is the grace Peter was referring to. Grace in Acts 10 was so they would believe in Christ and his baptism.

Act 10:14  But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Act 10:15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

They were not cleansed in the sense of forgiven, but their hearts were cleansed for the reception of the Gospel.

God cleansed their hearts in faith so that the Holy Spirit would fall upon them. This is Peter's point in recalling this in Acts 15.

Act 15:7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 15:8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Act 15:9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This purification took place before they heard the Gospel. Acts 10:3 says He feared God with his whole house before meeting Peter. It was before the Spirit fell upon them. The Spirit fell upon them to recognize their heart was acceptable to hear the gospel and be baptized. It was a witness to Peter and to the Jews accompanying Peter.

The Holy Spirit did not acknowledge they were saved before baptism, but their hearts were cleansed so they were able to accept the word.

Psa 51:10  Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

This is Peter's view of grace, not the dismissal of baptism, but God purifying the heart to make it acceptable to receive the gospel.

Luk 8:15  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Peter then mentions the miracles among the Gentiles which would prepare their hearts.

Act 15:11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Peter'sidea of Grace was God's work in changing their hearts in miracles and other means..

The word was falling upon good soil.

Another verse used by the Church of Christ to teach Baptismal Regeneration is Acts 22:16. This is where Ananias tells Paul to ". . . . arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Revelation 1:5 plainly tells us that it is the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST that washes away sin, not water baptism, so there is obviously more to Acts 22:16 than the Church of Christ teaches. Why did Ananias say this to Paul? Well, WHO WAS Ananias? According to Acts 22:12, he was a Jewish proselyte who still followed the Old Testament law. He still followed the law because he, like Peter, did not yet have full understanding of Salvation by Grace. Obviously he didn't, or he wouldn't have been following the law. Being a "devout man according to the law", Ananias associated water baptism with the Old Testament laws of PURIFICATION (Jn. 11:55; 2:6; Num. 19:7-22; Acts 21:24-25), which were for washing the FLESH, not the soul. He didn't have a clear understanding of the Blood Atonement of Christ, which washes away all sin.

Act 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This doesn't say water washes away sin, it only says that in baptism your sins are washed away, we believe by the blood of Christ. In being baptized you are calling upon Christ's name to save. Mentally, the persons mind is trusting toward Christ.

https://sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home/epistle-of-barnabas

Since Paul was commanded to be baptized one would expect under Baptist doctrine that his sins were already removed, but this emphatically shows that even after confession of Christ and 3 days of earnest prayer that he still had his sins.

Also, on the road to Damascus Jesus tells Paul that Ananias would tell him what he must do.

Act 9:6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

The commandment given was to be baptized.

The Churches of Christ have believed that in baptism you are trusting the sacrifice of Christ.

1. You are Baptist into Christ, thus entering Christ is the final result of baptism.

2. We are baptized into his death, thus his sacrifice is plainly in view.

3. We put on Christ, thus we are clothed spiritually and atonement results.

4. We die with Christ and in believing in the resurrection we are justified by faith in baptism.

.Thus, in baptism we are mentally believing on Christ and not solely on water. Jesus came with water and blood. This the Spirit bears witness.

1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Notice Paul believed in the risen Christ before baptism, but was not justified in faith until he went through the water. Until baptism he still had his sins.

The Church of Christ also uses I Peter 3:21 to teach that water baptism saves people, but, as anyone can clearly see, the verse says that it is a "figure," not a doctrine. Water baptism PICTURES the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. When a believer is baptized he is being identified with Jesus Christ, but it is his BELIEF that brings Salvation, as we've already seen. Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27 are frequently used by the Church of Christ to teach that water baptism is essential for Salvation, but there is no WATER baptism in either of these verses. These portions of scripture are speaking of the SPIRITUAL baptism of I Corinthians 12:13 which places the new believer into the body of Christ. Water baptism does NOT place anyone into the body of Christ. The Holy Ghost places us into Christ the moment we RECEIVE Christ as our Saviour, and this has nothing to do with water baptism. Remember, to "baptize" means to immerse. To be baptized into Christ is to be IMMERSED into Christ, not into the water (I Cor. 12:13).

I answered these objections in an earlier section. Basically, he tries to turn passages speaking of water baptism into Holy Spirit baptism.

I Corinthians 12:13  just proves the Holy Spirit gave us baptism. The participle "BY" denotes instrumentality and not accusative identification. The Holy Spirit gives the baptism, not is the baptism. Even in cases where Holy Spirit baptism takes place, they are commanded to be baptized in water. This is clearly separated in passages like Acts 10:47-48.

I Corinthians 12:3 is a good example that the preposition "BY" is used instrumentally. see above.

Galations 3:27 and Galations 4:6 use baptism and the Holy Spirit separately. They aren't the same event in the passage.

Paul said in I Corinthians 1:17 that, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. . . "

Faith only groups use I Cor 1:17 to say baptism is unnecessary. It actually proves biblical baptism when you look at Paul's commission. Let's look at the event and see what it actually says.

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Paul begins by placing himself under Christ and calling Sosthenes a brother. He sets the example of accepting the proper relationship between Christ and man, and man and man..

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

This was widespread in the group and had become a problem.

Notice the word "of" is not in the Greek text, as if they were brought forth by that individual person, and each person was making the claim. Thus each person was using a precedent that you were made authentic and even superior by the one who baptized you. The word "of" is interpolated, but the text is even stronger language.

The Greek actually says, I am Paul, I am Apollos, I am Cephas, I am Christ.

The claim of being the "same as" because that person baptized you or brought you forth. They believed baptism created an identity with the one who baptized. Identity of authority and doctrine.

As an apostle Paul is commissioned to teach baptism properly, he is fulfilling his commission by clearing this up. Thus he isn't dismissing baptism as necessary, but teaching it so that it will be proper.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul questions the practice because it would divide the church. One is baptized in Christ's name and no other. Christ gave the great commission. Paul acknowledges all were baptized.

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Paul taught baptism as part of his commission and even baptized a few families, but was glad it was few enough that he could not be accused in serving his own name in baptism. He was not an official baptizer. Christ wanted it that way.

Paul was not against baptism, he was against baptism into a name other than Christ.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul uses his commission to prove the original teaching concerning baptism and how it identifies a person with the Godhead, vs the baptizer.

The question is, was Paul using this verse to say baptism was unnecessary, or was he re-visiting his Apostolic commission when Christ sent him, to clear up baptism itself? We contend to properly teach baptism while Baptists use it to dismiss baptism.

This verse is used for several false teachings.

1. That Christ did not think baptism necessary. (Yet he gave the great commission)

2. That baptism was not part of the Gospel. (baptism is in the gospel as Christ taught it)

The great commission shows that the apostles were commanded to preach but not necessarily baptize. Christ was silent about the Apostles having to be the baptizers.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

commanded to preach, the next verse reveals specifically what he was commanded to preach.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It was the responsibility of the disciple to submit to baptism. Not a direct responsibility of an Apostle to be the baptizer.

Notice from the great commission apostles were commissioned to preach the Gospel and teach Christ's commands within the Gospel,  including baptism, but were not appointed as the official baptizers.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (Giving purpose of baptism not saying they are the baptizer) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Since baptism is mentioned specifically in the commission it is a first principle, and the other commands follow later. Heb.6:1-3

The Apostles were primarily teachers and the disciples they taught were to observe all things commanded. The responsibility was given to the disciples to fulfill Christ's commandments.

It was to be only into God's name, never in man's name.

Paul was alluding to the great commission that set forth his responsibilities vs the responsibilities of the disciples he taught.

As an apostle he was the teacher, not the official baptizer. He was commissioned to teach baptism since it was part of the gospel, it was part of his general work..

Also, since the commission said to "Baptize into the name of the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit, Paul was responsible for making sure this was understood. He had a responsibility set forth by the commission to correct those baptizing into man's name.

Paul was not setting aside baptism, he was teaching it correctly and telling the church they were thinking of it incorrectly.

Since Paul was simply aluding to his commission, and the commission included the proper teaching of baptism, he was not dismissing baptism's necessity.

The "gospel" is defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4 as being the good news that Christ died, was buried, and then rose again on the third day, and the subject of water baptism isn't mentioned once. Baptism is important, and all true believers should submit to water baptism (Acts 10:47; 8:37-38; Mt. 28:18-20), but trusting water baptism for Salvation is a terrible and unscriptural mistake.

There are many elements of the Gospel not listed in I Corinthians 15:1-4, .the virgin birth and ascension are part of the Gospel but not listed in the verse.

Thus Paul was giving a basic list for his present doctrinal disagreement concerning the resurrection. He wasn't saying anything not on the list was outside of the Gospel

Baptism is part of the Gospel It is part of Christ's historical teaching.

Friend, you have seen how the Bible interprets itself. You have seen the TRUTH about the doctrines of the Church of Christ. According to Romans 16:17-18, these people should be MARKED and AVOIDED. We urge you to start looking for a true Bible believing church where the word of God is preached and taught correctly. If you've never been saved, we urge you to carefully and prayerfully read the Salvation verses that we've already presented. You can be saved this very moment, but you must repent of your sins (Lk. 13:3) and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. ONLY JESUS CHRIST can save you. Your church membership, your baptism, and your good

intentions cannot save you. We urge you to repent of your sins and call upon the Lord to save you today, for tomorrow may be too late

The person that needs to repent is this Baptist, since he is trying to over turn the teaching of Christ.

They have marked and persecuted us for a long time. I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

I am a person who grew up around both environments and it took me a while to muddle through all of the arguments, but it made me a much stronger person. Hopefully this article or website will help you grow as well.

I believe the Church of Christ is God's church, we aren't the only people who teach as we do, therefore we aren't the only group that can be recognized by God. But I do believe that as a group we were grafted back into Christ.

Once you accept Christ and his plan you can be grafted in as well.