101 QUESTIONS FOR CAMPBELLITES

By: A. A. Davis

A N S W E R E D !

By: Roy Runyon

(With the exception of the title and first two paragraphs, all the original document is “blue.” My answers are “black” and “red.”)

A.A. Davis was pastor of First Baptist Church of Nowata, OK USA. This list of questions for Campbellites is from , "The Baptist Story," a book containing a series of sermons and other information about Baptist doctrine and history. For copies of this 250-page book --which includes the chart, "The Trail of Blood"-- contact Larry Harrison, 9066 Knickerbocker, St. John, IN 46373 USA.

What are Campbellites? They are otherwise known as "The Church of Christ," or "The Disciples of Christ," and believe that Water Baptism is essential to salvation in Jesus Christ. Please see BELIEVER'S BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE by Rick DeMichele.

The term “Campbellites” is merely a derogatory nickname applied to a group of Christians, and is used in ridicule of those who reject Baptist customs in favor of a “thus saith the Lord,” and insist that the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is just as essential as faith in becoming a child of God.

These questions call for careful study. They have been compiled after many years of hard work in defense of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus. These questions have already been on the BLOCK of execution have seen the field of battle and have emerged victorious in every skirmish. Joint Debate, private discussion, individual Bible study, these questions have raised in every arena. Let the Baptists never fear the result - simply ask the question and listen to the answers.

It is my understanding that Mr. Davis has passed away and I wish first to offer my condolences to his family and friends. I have said nothing herein with malice, but rather, it is my earnest desire that you will take the time to carefully read this entire document, and look up the scriptures that are given. I ask you not to accept anything I say without a thorough investigation of what your Bible says, and also that you not dismiss these thoughts simply because they are not the norm of today’s religious perception. With so great a concoction of religious beliefs today, the only way you can know of a certainty which one is the way, is to lay aside all of your preconceived notions, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and uninspired church manuals, and accept only what the Bible plainly says. The reason you must allow the Bible be the ultimate authority in all matters of religion is because we are being judged by what is written therein (Jn.12:48). Should you have any questions, or want to study further, feel free to contact me at anytime via one of the following: Roy Runyon, 3274 Sutton Rd. Grayson, KY 41143. Phone: 606-474-6277; e-mail: rynlrn@reagan.com.

1. Are YOU saved or Lost? See I Cor. 1:13. Rom 8:1.

Saved.

2. If saved, IS the love of God in YOUR HEART? See Rom. 5:5.

Yes.

3. If Saved, ARE you Born of God? I John 5:1

Yes, one cannot be saved without being born of God.

4. If Saved, Is Christ in You? Col. 1:27; 2 Cor. 13:5.

Yes, again, one cannot be saved without having Christ in them.

5. If you are Born of God, ARE you a Child of God? John 1:12; Rom. 8:16.

Yes, being born of God, is how one becomes a child of God, they are synonymous.

6. If a Child of God, do YOU have Eternal Life? John 10:27, 28.

Yes, strange though, Mr. Davis has asked if Christ is in me (#4), but never asks if I am in Christ. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature...” (2 Cor.5:17). I think he is avoiding Gal.3:27!

7. Is Baptism a PART of the Gospel? I Cor. 1.17

Since Jesus commanded His apostles to teach and baptize (Mt.28:19), and all cases of conversion in the book of Acts included immediate baptism, how can anyone reason that baptism is not part of the gospel? Mr. Davis isolates Paul’s statement (“...For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...”), trying to suggest that baptism is not essential to salvation, while ignoring the surrounding context which makes it crystal clear as to why Paul made this statement. Back up to verse 10 and you will see that Paul was condemning the division that existed among the members of the church of Christ at Corinth. Then Paul said in verse 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. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” Now it becomes obvious why Paul would say, “For Christ sent me not to baptize...,” so they couldn’t claim to be “of Paul.” Mr. Davis wants you to believe that baptism is not part of the gospel, but let’s read Acts 18:8 (which Mr. Davis eloquently avoided) and see just how these Corinthians became Christians, and whether or not Paul preached baptism as part of the gospel (even if he didn’t himself baptize all of the penitents.) “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” Notice in this passage that the statements, “...believed on the Lord...” and “...hearing believed, and were baptized...” are synonymous! When you the reader will consider the context of any given passage, then and only then will you be able to reach the proper conclusion. The first clause of Acts 18:8 states that Crispus believed, but does not mention baptism, while 1 Cor.1:14 reveals that Paul personally baptized him, so, isn’t it patently obvious that Paul preached baptism as part of his gospel, and that to “believe on the Lord” included baptism, as it also does in Acts 2:38-44 and Acts 16:30-34?

8. Could a man without ARMS and Legs preach the Gospel Paul preached?

I see no reason why he couldn’t! He could preach, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col.2:12), just as Paul did, and another person could baptize the believing penitents into Christ (Gal.3:27), as Paul’s traveling companions did for him at Corinth; likewise, as Jesus preached, and His disciples administered baptism for the remission of sins in Jn.4:2.

9. What is the Gospel Paul Preached? I Cor. 15:1-3.

Paul preached the facts of the gospel, let’s read: (and include verse 4 which Mr. Davis omitted probably to avoid the connection of baptism being a typification of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Rom.6:3-6) “1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” When you read these verses, you see that the gospel is based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which Paul specifically said, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin,” (Rom.6:3-6). Can you now see why Mr. Davis would omit verse 4 of 1 Corinthians 15? It is in baptism that the penitent typifies these facts of the gospel. It is in baptism (not faith only) that the old man of sin is crucified and the body of sin is destroyed. Baptism is the point from (henceforth) which we should not serve sin. This is the gospel that Paul preached in every congregation of the Lord’s church (1 Cor.4:17).

10. Do you preach the Gospel Paul preached? Cor. 1:17 Rom. 1:16, 17; I Cor. 2:2.

Yes, I preach the same gospel Paul preached. Rom.6:3-6,17,18; 10:17; Gal.3:26,27; 5:4,6; Rom.2:28,29; Col.2:11,12; 1 Cor.11:1-16; Eph.1:22,23; 4:4; 5:23; Col.3:16; Eph.5:19; 2 Cor.11:13-15 “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” This, is the gospel that Paul preached, and that I preach, i.e., anyone who does not quote scripture in context is quoting scripture in a deceitful manner just as Satan himself quoted scripture (deceitfully) to the Lord (Lk.4:1-8). Any preacher that reads such passages as, Mk.16:16, Acts 2:38, Jn.9:31, Gal.3:27, Acts 22:16, James 2:24, and tells you that these passages don’t mean what they plainly say, they are Satan’s preachers!

11. Is Baptism an act of SOVEREIGN GRACE performed by God or is it an act of righteousness on man's part? Matt. 3:15; Titus 3:5.

Neither! Notice what the Bible says takes place during scriptural baptism:

Baptism is the only means (which the Bible specifically says) of getting into Christ where salvation is located (2 Tim.2:10). Can one become saved before getting into Christ? Does the Bible say that the sinner believes into Christ? Does the Bible say that one can pray into Christ? Since the Bible says neither, shouldn’t preachers stop denying what the Bible plainly says? (Mt.3:15 and Titus 3:5 are discussed in later questions)

12. Were you redeemed by the precious waters of Baptism or by the precious BLOOD of Jesus Christ? I Peter 1 :18,19.

All (who obey God’s commandments) are redeemed by the blood of Christ, however, Mr. Davis fails to inform you how to contact the blood. Jesus shed his blood in his death (Jn.19:34), and it is when one is baptized into Christ’s death (where his blood was shed) that he contacts the precious blood of Jesus Christ (Rom.6:3-6). Consider this: Naaman, a captain of the host of the king of Syria, had the disease of leprosy. God’s prophet, Elisha, “sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.” Naaman, at first became very angry, but later decided to obey the voice of God. “Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean” (2 Kings 5:1-14). Romans 15:4 tells us that the things that were written aforetime were written for our learning, so, what can we learn from this example? What I want to convey to you the reader is this: The point in time at which Naaman was cleansed. Was Naaman cleansed when he decided to obey the voice of God? No. Was Naaman cleansed when he stepped into the water? No. Was Naaman cleansed when he had dipped himself six times? No. Was Naaman cleansed when he had completed his obedience to the voice of God, after he had dipped the seventh time? YES! Now, draw a parallel between this example of faith coupled with obedience, to people today who are diseased with sin. God’s word reveals the remedy for this disease. Faith is necessary (Heb.11:6) but was Naaman cleansed when his faith caused him to step into the water? No. Neither will faith only cleanse the sinner today (James 2:24)! Repentance and confession are also necessary (Acts 17:30; Rom.10:9-10), but was Naaman cleansed when he had dipped the sixth time? No. Neither is the sinner cleansed today without completing his obedience to the voice of God, humbly submitting to all of God’s commandments (Rom.6:17-18; 1 Pet.1:22-23). Jesus commanded the apostles to go teach and baptize (Mt.28:19) and Peter, after preaching the first gospel sermon, told the hearers to, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” (Acts 2:38). It’s obvious that these people had faith, but were they cleansed before repentance? No. Were they cleansed after they had obeyed the voice of God speaking through Peter, after they repented and were baptized the same day? YES! Apply these same thoughts to every case of conversion through the book of Acts, and you’ll see the truth.

13. If Baptism LITERALLY puts one IN CHRIST, What act LITERALLY puts CHRIST in You? 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27; Rom. 3:24,25.

The same, baptism. Notice: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal.3:27). “Put on” in the Greek is, “enduo, from G1722 and G1416 (in the sense of sinking into a garment); to invest with clothing (lit. or fig.):--array, clothe (with), endue, have (put) on” (Strong’s). Paul says that we are children of God because we clothe ourselves with Christ when we get into Christ, which occurs when we are baptized into Christ. Then, almost in the same breath, he says, “And because ye are sons [children], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal.4:6; compare also Rom.6:3-6 with Rom.8:1-17). There is a pattern developing in these questions, of selecting particular verses such as “2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27; Rom. 3:24,25” which state that something has occurred, while dodging verses which specifically state when and how it occurred. This is a typical trick that Satan’s preachers (2 Cor.11:13-15) use to deceive you, so beware.

14. Did Jesus Christ know the plan of Salvation? John 14:6.

Of course He did, even though He didn’t fully reveal it here. Everything in due time. Jesus said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk.24:46,47). Baptism in the name of (in the authority of) Jesus Christ was not to begin until Pentecost.

15. Did Christ at any time or place personally tell a sinner to be baptized FOR or In ORDER to the Remission of Sin? If so WHEN and WHERE?

Yes! “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for←[eis] the remission of sins” (Mk.1:4). “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John...,” (Jn.4:2). Since Jesus, preached the same message as John, of necessity He preached baptism, which Mr. Davis admits in question #48, so why is he suggesting here that Jesus never told the sinner to be baptized? Isn’t this another deliberate deception? (2 Cor.11:13-15)

16. Did Christ personally, at any time or place say to anyone, He That is Baptized not shall be damned?

Not that is recorded in the Bible, but, what did Luke mean when he said, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him [John]” (Lk.7:30)? Does it appear that baptism was optional? Weren’t they lost because they rejected baptism? Since Jesus specifically said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” was it really necessary for Him to say, “He that is not baptized shall be damned...”? Isn’t it rather obvious that a person who doesn’t believe in Jesus, does not need to be told that if he is not baptized he’ll be damned?!

17. Is that Statement: HE THAT IS BAPTIZED NOT SHALL BE DAMNED, to be found anywhere in the Bible? If so . . . Where????

No, and it baffles me why Baptists flatly deny what the Bible does say in the first clause of this verse, because of what it does not say in the latter portion. Can’t a principle be taught without the express statement being written? Doesn’t the Bible teach the principle of three in the Godhead without using the word “Trinity?” Doesn’t the Bible teach that it is wrong to gamble even though there is no statement, “Thou shalt not gamble?” Consider Luke 7:30 quoted in the previous question. Isn’t is obvious that they were condemned because they were not baptized?

18. Do you and your brethren, self-styled CHURCH OF CHRIST, not preach and teach, in word, precept and effect, that "HE THAT IS BAPTIZED NOT SHALL BE DAMNED"?

We teach exactly what Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk.16:16). Problems arise only when someone refuses to accept what the first clause plainly says. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt.28:19). Perhaps I could start a doctrine of baptism only, because this verse says nothing of faith, only teach and baptize! “Baptism doeth also now save us...” (1 Pet.3:21). This would be more scriptural support for my new “Baptism Only” doctrine, because nothing is said of faith, nor repentance. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Again, nothing is said of faith, therefore I have more evidence for my new doctrine of baptism only, and there are other scriptures that space does not allow to state. This is the same reasoning and logic used by Baptist preachers in their doctrine of faith only, i.e., verses which mention faith, but do not mention baptism. Can’t you see how this type of reasoning doesn’t work if you apply it to all of the scriptures? I’m sure that you can see the folly in this thought of baptism only, but, it is no more insane than the faith only doctrine, especially since the Bible says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). John 3:16 for instance, does not mention repentance, but Baptists admit that repentance is necessary. Why? Because it is commanded in other verses, such as Acts 17:30, Lk.13:3, and 2 Pet.3:9. So why do they reject baptism when it too is commanded in other verses? Isn’t this just deceptive double talk?

19. Do you not further pollute your own imaginary scripture by inserting TWO imaginary requirements: (1) That it must be administered by a Church of Christ preacher, and (2) that when the candidate goes under the water, he MUST BELIEVE that act is for OR IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF HIS SINS????

Let us consider who actually has “imaginary” scriptures. The Bible plainly says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...,” (Mk.16:16) but Baptists preach, “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.”

The Bible very clearly says, “...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...,” (Acts 2:38) but Baptists teach, “...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins...”

The Bible says in no uncertain terms, “...baptism doeth also now save us...,” (1 Pet.3:21) but Baptists say, “Baptism doeth not save us...”

The Bible says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24), but Baptists very adamantly proclaim, “Ye see then how that a man is justified by faith only, and not by works.” Who is it that actually has “imaginary” scriptures?!

“That it must be administered by a Church of Christ preacher...” Would a person who was seeking to join a Baptist church come to a church of Christ preacher to be baptized?!

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom.6:17,18). Since Paul said that the form (baptized into Christ’s death, verse 3) was to be obeyed from the heart, isn’t it patently obvious that one must understand what he is doing? Peter, on the day of Pentecost set the precedent, when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” (Acts 2:38). Am I wrong for only repeating what the Holy Spirit said through Peter? (see Question # 57 for the meaning of “for”) Why do Baptist preachers never give book, chapter, and verse of an instance where a sinner was told to kneel at the mourner’s bench and pray his sins away in order to become a Christian? The answer is simple, the scripture doesn’t exist. Why do they never quote Acts 2:38 to a sinner who desires salvation? It contradicts their vain philosophy of salvation by faith only!

20. Do you not reject Baptist Baptism because of the absence of these two points????

Yes, and for other reasons such as is given in # 44.

21. Since you and your brethren ADMITTEDLY preach and teach the above doctrine, in word and deed, and since such statement can not be found in the Scriptures. He That is Baptized not shall be damned, Is it NOT TRUE that you teach a doctrine that IS NOT in the Scriptures?

Answered above.

22. You, furthermore, proclaim, your motto: Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent: WHY DON'T YOU REMAIN SILENT ON ABOVE DOCTRINE". "He that is Baptized not shall be damned", BE SILENT, SUCH statement is NOT IN THE BIBLE.

It would never need to be mentioned if Baptists didn’t flatly deny what Jesus plainly said! It’s really strange (according to Baptist preachers) that the Holy Spirit said so many things that don’t mean what they plainly say. The Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...,” (Mk.16:16), and I say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved....” Now, am I speaking where the Bible speaks?! But a Baptist preacher has the audacity to tell me to “BE SILENT,” so that he can tell you that this passage means, “He that believeth is saved, and should be baptized if he has the opportunity.” You the reader must be the judge of who is speaking as the Bible speaks (1 Pet.4:11). Open your Bible and look up all scriptures listed before you make your conclusion.

23. Since your entire approach is builded on an imaginary scripture which does not exist, your every effort is made to twist other scriptures and compel THEM to MEAN your Imaginary Scripture. NOW IS THIS STATEMENT FOUND IN THE BIBLE: "He that believeth not shall be damned"? Baptists preach that exactly as listed. DO BAPTISTS PREACH WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE? Now watch him twist.

Baptist doctrine teaches that the reverse of, “He that believeth not shall be damned” means “He that believes only shall be saved.” Since the word of God is perfect (James 1:25), it is its own best interpreter, and its own best commentary; therefore, it is wise to consider other scriptures, such as Jn.3:18: “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.” Please note John’s use of the word, “already” in this verse. This clearly indicates that there is something else to do, other than believing only. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not is condemned already! Why? “... without faith it is impossible to please him...” (Heb.11:6).

24. Is there an instance in the Bible where a sinner was saved without Baptism? Acts 15:9; Luke 7:48; I John 5:4; Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:11-13.

That depends on Mr. Davis’ definition of a sinner. A person who is not a child of God is an alien sinner, but sometimes an erring child of God is also referred to as a sinner (cf. Lk.18:13; James 5:19,20). There are different requirements for each as will become apparent as we proceed.

Eph.1:11-13 “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” I thought Mr. Davis’ position was that when one believed, he was saved, but the verse he refers to says after belief they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Can we find some other scripture that will shed more light on what Paul is saying here? Yes, let’s read from Acts 2, “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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38,39). Isn’t the promise in this passage the same promise in Eph.1:13? Since Eph.1:13 states that the promise was received after they believed, and Acts 2:38 reveals that the promise was received after baptism, then the conclusion is inescapable. They were not sealed with the Holy Spirit before baptism, and they could not be saved before being sealed with the Spirit which was the earnest (down payment) of their inheritance until the day of redemption (Eph.4:30).

1 Jn.5:4-8 If you continue reading through verse 8, where John explains more about being “born of God,” there is an interesting precept that once again Mr. Davis conveniently avoided, notice, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” What is that “one” in which the Spirit, the water, and the blood all agree? Is it faith only? Is it the sinner’s prayer? No. The only “one” in which all three agreed was baptism! Baptized in water (Acts 8:38), to contact the blood (Rom.6:3; Jn.19:34), to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Acts 15:9 This verse is Peter’s rehearsal of the conversion of Cornelius and family which says, “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Mr. Davis (again) suggests that because “faith” is the only thing mentioned here, that baptism is not necessary, but as we’ve seen previously, this reasoning is not reliable! This verse does not mention repentance does it, but we know that repentance is necessary because of its commandment in other verses. Neither does this verse mention “confession,” but Paul plainly said, “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” (Rom.10:9). Was Cornelius saved without this confession that Paul specifically said was necessary for salvation? Now, the Baptist interpretation of this verse creates a dilemma! Repentance, and confession, which are necessary, are not mentioned in Acts 15:9, so, Baptist preachers must admit one of two things: 1) that because repentance and confession are commanded in other verses, Cornelius obeyed these commands even though Luke didn’t expressly record them, or: 2) that Cornelius and his family was saved without repentance, as well as not confessing their faith in Christ. If Baptist preachers admit # 1, then they cannot argue that baptism (also a command in other verses) is not just as necessary as faith, especially since Peter commanded baptism in the name of the Lord at Cornelius’ home, which these two verses prove beyond any doubt is water baptism (Acts 10:47,48).

“...purifying their hearts by faith.” How does faith come? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom.10:17). What did the angel tell Cornelius? “...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:13,14). When is ones heart purified? “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 [the heart] toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet.3:21).

Lk.7:48 This woman was an erring child of God under the law of Moses. Baptism, in the name of Christ, was not yet in effect. This is a common tool of Satan’s ministers (2 Cor.11:13-15) to blend the Old Testament with the New, as the dealer shuffles a deck of cards. The Judaic teachers were trying to impose portions of the Mosaic law upon the Galatians but hear Paul, are you listening? “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal.5:4).

Acts 26:18 - ?? This is very suspicious indeed! The conversion of Saul is spoken of in three different places, first, in Acts 9:1-18, “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized” (v.18); Second, in Acts 22:1-16 “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (v.16), and third, in Acts 26:1-20. Once again, Mr. Davis has intentionally guided the reader around two plain passages of scripture that specifically say that Saul (Paul) was baptized, and not only that he was baptized, but baptized in order to wash away his sins, to the one verse which only mentions faith, which is undeniable proof of deliberate deception! (2 Cor.11:13-15)

25. Is Baptism a command to and for the Saved or Unsaved? Which? Remember there is only ONE BAPTISM !

Look again at what occurs during this one baptism (Eph.4:5) listed previously in #11. Can one become a Christian before his sins are washed away, or getting into Christ, etc.?

26. If to the UNSAVED are not the unsaved UNBORN OF GOD? Now, do you give commands to your child BEFORE IT IS BORN or AFTER it is born? Can an UNBORN child obey a parent?

Can the “UNBORN child” have faith “BEFORE IT IS BORN”??? According to Mr. Davis’ reasoning here, the unsaved (“UNBORN OF GOD”) must be born of God before having faith because faith is a commandment! Heb.11:6 clearly says, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is...” Let’s be serious, is it possible for the sinner (unsaved) to be saved without pleasing God? Impossible! Mr. Davis’ argument implodes by his own reasoning, and this should be an eye-opener to you the reader of how these questions are steeped in false doctrine, designed through many years of zigzagging around verses such as Jn.9:31, Acts 2:38; 22:16, and Gal.3:27. The sinner is not “unborn” because he first had to be born physically, then die spiritually (Eph.2:1; James 1:13-15); then he must be born again. To be born again necessitates having already been born once!

27. Do you and your Brethren not teach that the COMMANDS of God are given to the UNBORN and that they, the commands are but instruments BY WHICH the UNBORN can obtain BIRTH?

Yes! Those who are spiritually dead are begotten by the word (James 1:18), which is the Spirit’s heart-pricking instrument (Acts 2:37; Eph.6:17), and delivered from the waters of baptism (Rom.6:3-6; Col.2:12), thus being born again, of water and of the Spirit (Jn.3:3-5). As the Bible refers to Jesus’ coming forth from the tomb as a birth, being born from the dead, (Col.1:18; Rev.1:5), so it is that when the believing penitent comes forth from the watery tomb of baptism, it is a birth, being born of water.

28. You boast of LOGIC -where is there any LOGIC to this matter?

There is no logic in comparing an unborn fetus to a “...man when he is old” (Jn.3:4), who is a sinner, spiritually “...dead in trespasses and in sins” (Eph.2:1), who must be “...born again...” (Jn.3:3), “...of water and of the Spirit...” (Jn.3:5), which consists of the baptismal bath (washing) of spiritual rebirth (regeneration) and “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” thus being “justified by his grace...” (Titus 3:5-7).

29. If you say -Baptism is a command for the SAVED - you find yourself in the BAPTIST position, EXACTLY This you do not teach or believe. See Acts 2:41. WHO was baptized here?

“This you do not teach or believe.” Correct! “See Acts 2:41. WHO was baptized here?” The three thousand who gladly received Peter’s command of, “...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” (v.38)! They obviously were not saved without baptism, because after Peter told them to repent and be baptized, he then said, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (v.40). This unquestionably proves that baptism is not “a command for the SAVED” because it is impossible to reason that they were saved prior to verse 41! They gladly received Peter’s word, and promptly obeyed his command of baptism. Nothing is said of accepting Christ as your personal Savior, nor of praying through at the mourner’s bench. Since the Holy Spirit’s message through Peter was repent and be baptized, why would it be any different today? Furthermore, why would they baptize some 3,000 people, all in the same day, if baptism is not necessary for salvation?!

30. Do you and your Brethren not also teach and believe- that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God until after His Baptism?

Absolutely not! This sounds similar to the Jehovah’s witnesses’ doctrine that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state was merely a created archangel, a blasphemous doctrine! Jesus was God’s Son before the world was created (Phil.2:6). Jesus created all things (Jn.1:3). (This is simply a defamation against the church of Christ, to make us look as ridiculous as possible, so that you would be less likely to consider what we insist your Bible says. This should peak your curiosity even more!)

31. Whose Son was He in BETHLEHEM'S MANGER?

God’s Son.

32. Is not the sum of your doctrine simply this: He that lives Closest to the creek, lives closest to the Lord? He that lives furthest from the creek, lives furtherest from the Lord? Does this not place the DESERT dwellers at a distinct disadvantage? Then a Man's Salvation would be simple or difficult according to his GEOGRAPHICAL location? Does this sound like Jesus Christ in John 3:16?

(This Machiavellian conclusion is the product of mans’ reasoning versus God’s wisdom!) No, but when one desires to obey the gospel, the Lord will provide a way, e.g., the eunuch in Acts 8:26-39. He was returning to Ethiopia from Jerusalem when Philip, directed by the angel of the Lord (v.29), met this man and, “...preached unto him Jesus,” (v.35). “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized” (v.36)? Isn't the divine providence of God overwhelmingly obvious? These men were riding in a chariot through an area that was “DESERT” (v.26), and came upon a body of water large enough for both men to go “down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him” (v.38).

Where did the eunuch learn about baptism? The Bible simply says that Philip “...preached unto him Jesus.” Isn’t it a Bible fact that a true gospel preacher cannot preach Jesus without preaching baptism? If baptism is not part of the gospel as most preachers contend, why did Philip, who was directed by the Holy Spirit, include baptism in “preaching Jesus?” When did the eunuch rejoice, before, or after his baptism in water? Case closed! Mr. Davis has yet to offer an exegetical argument.

33. Are the FAMILY of God, the KINGDOM OF GOD and the CHURCH OF GOD ALL one and the SAME ???

Yes, these are different designations for the same institution.

34. Do all who belong to the family of God also belong to the Church of God?

Yes. In the Bible, God’s institution is referred to by several designations. If the institution is viewed from the standpoint of its relationship to the world, it is called the “church,” which means the “called out,” or those who are distinct from the world having been called by the gospel (Jn.15:19; 2 Thess.2:13-14). When the organism is viewed from the standpoint of: its government, it is properly called the “kingdom” (Mt.16:18,19; Heb.12:23,28): of organization, it is called the “body” (Rom.12:4,5; Col.1:18; Eph.1:22-23): of a family, it is called the “house of God” (1 Tim.3:15; Rom.8:14-17): of its worship, it is called the “temple of God” (1 Cor.3:16,17; 2 Cor.6:16; 1 Pet.2:5): in reference to its relationship to Christ, it is called the bride of Christ, and individual members wear His name (Eph.5:23-32; Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1Pe 4:16). One can understand why the same institution is referred to by several designations, for a man can be a brother, a husband, a lawyer, an American, a Christian, and a father, but yet, he is just one man considered from six different relationships. Just because Paul referred to God’s institution as the church of God in one passage, and the church of Christ in another does not mean that these were two different denominations!

35. Did God have a family before Pentecost?

Yes, the children of Israel, i.e., the Jews.

36. Then is it now possible to become a member of the family of God and not become a member of the Church at the same time?

No. Under the law of Moses, (the Old Testament) God’s people were the Jews. They became members of God’s family by natural birth, being of the seed lineage of Abraham, and circumcision was their seal. Christ came to fulfill all the law and prophecy, and He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until ALL was fulfilled, (Mt.5:17-18). Paul said that Christ came to "confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom.15:8). Christ came preaching and telling the people to repent for the kingdom was at hand, notice: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Mat.4:17). Jesus taught Nicodemus that access into this new kingdom would not be through fleshly birth as it was under the law of Moses, but rather through the new birth, i.e., of water and the Spirit, (Joh 3:3-5). Under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2), “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3:28). The Old Testament law was a covenant of circumcision, notice, “And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs” (Acts 7:8). This was a physical difference, the Jewish males were circumcised, the Gentiles were not, but, under Christ’s law, “...neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (Gal.6:15). “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom.2:28,29). Paul shows that the physical circumcision was supplanted by the inward circumcision of the heart. Now, notice when and how this inward circumcision comes about: “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col.2:11,12). Another point worth noting here in this same text is a few verses preceding this statement (verse 6), Paul said, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:” Paul says clearly here that they had received Christ and were, “...complete in Him...” (v.10), when (not before) they were buried in baptism thus receiving the inward circumcision, God cutting them loose from all past sins. Baptism is the completing act of ones’ obedience which puts the believing penitent “...in Him...” (Gal.3:27; Rom.6:3-6). One cannot become a member of God’s family apart from the church, because they are synonymous as is pointed out in # 34. This is a common misconception of most denominational preachers by which they teach that you ‘get saved’ and then you can join the church of your choice, a doctrine that is not taught, nor even hinted at in the Bible, because Jesus only built one church (Mt.16:18; Col.1:18; Eph.4:4). First of all, the fact still remains that you cannot find a Baptist church in the Bible, nor a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon, etc., so the apostles could not have taught that one ‘gets saved’ first, and then should go join the church of their choice. Second, when the believing penitent is baptized into Christ, he does not join a church because the Lord adds him to His church. Notice in Acts chapter two, that the “about 3000 souls” who repented and were baptized for the remission of sins, became “such as should be saved” and were “added to the church” by the Lord Himself. “...and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:37-47).

37. When and how did Jesus become a member of the Church of Christ?

Jesus is not a member of the church of Christ; the church is His body, of which He is the Head (Eph.1:22; Col.1:18)! Members are subject to the head. Christ is subject to no one, for He has all power in heaven and in earth (Mt.28:18).

38. When and How did the Apostles become members of the Church of Christ?

The disciples who became the apostles were Jews who received the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins under the ministry of John the Baptizer, (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:2-3). The law and the prophets were until John, (Luke 16:16). Since Micah 7:15 foretold that the miraculous operation of the Spirit would last for 40 years, and since the Holy Spirit's work began with John (Luke 1:41), then as the Israelites (inclusive of the apostles) were turning back to God through repentance and confession of sins, being baptized for remission of those sins, then they were added to the church in its prenatal/proleptic state and became the foundation of the church/kingdom (Eph.2:20-22) to be born (Isa.66:8-10) on Pentecost day.

39. Was John's Baptism, Christian Baptism?

No. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mk.1:4). “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (Acts 19:4). Not only was John’s baptism not Christian baptism, after Pentecost, John’s baptism was no longer valid, notice, “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-26).

Again, in Acts 19:1-5, “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Also note in this passage that the Bible usage of “believing on Christ” is synonymous with being “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” just as it is in Acts 18:8, both passages at the preaching of Paul. Now, do you still think that Paul didn’t preach baptism as part of the gospel?!

40. Who Baptized Jesus Christ?

John the forerunner of Christ.

41. Did Jesus Christ have Christian Baptism?

No. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” (Mk.1:4). Jesus was “...without sin,” (Heb.4:15). Since Jesus was the sinless one, and had nothing to repent of, His baptism was one of a kind, i.e., no one else could be baptized in this manner! The phrase, "Christian baptism" is a misnomer, and a deceptive innovation of mankind in that a Christian is a penitent who was baptized to become a Christian; therefore, "Christian baptism" is foreign to the scriptures. Baptism is a burial in the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom.6:3-6). Jesus had not yet died therefore making it impossible for anyone prior to His death to be baptized to become a Christian.

42. Have you received the same kind of Baptism, Jesus and the Apostles received?

I, nor no one since the apostles have received the same kind of baptism they received because the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit was only promised to, and received by them, (Lk.24:49; Acts 2). This is another attempt of Satan’s preachers to confuse you by blending the different uses of baptism without considering the context of each.

43. Is Jesus Christ the Head of the Church of Christ?

Yes, Col.1:18.

44. Since the Head of the Church received ONLY John's Baptism, is not John's Baptism, Christian Baptism?

(Answered in #’s 37 - 41) Mr. Davis would have us to believe here in this question that John’s baptism was Christian baptism, thus trying to prove that the disciples baptized by John were Christians, but, in question #66, he suggests that the believers before Antioch were saved even though they were not yet called Christians, thus, once again, we have Baptist double talk. (See 1 Tim.1:7)

There is a vast difference between John’s baptism, and baptism as practiced by Baptists today: John’s baptism was administered only to those who confessed their sins (Mt.3:6), while Baptists administer baptism only to those who confess that they have no sins (because they think they’re already saved), and only if they have been approved by the vote of the congregation. John’s baptism was not preceded by a vote, of anybody, but, Baptists take a vote of the congregation: “The churches therefore have candidates come before them, make their statement, give their ‘experience,’ and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members. And while they cannot become members without baptism, yet it is the vote of the body which admits them to its fellowship on receiving baptism.” (Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Hiscox, pg. 22). John did not baptize into the Baptist church because it was not in existence. Today, Baptists baptize into the Baptist denomination rather than “...into Jesus Christ...” (Gal.3:27; Rom.6:3-7). It is evident that John was not a Baptist, because he did not teach Baptist doctrine. John preached baptism for the remission of sins (Lk.3:3), therefore he did not follow Baptist doctrine. John was not a Baptist, he was the Baptist, i.e., he who baptizes. Furthermore, John could not be a Baptist because he was never baptized, and a person cannot be a Baptist without being baptized!

45. Or Has the Head of the Church received one KIND of Baptism and the Church altogether another Kind?

Answered in previous question. (# 41)

46. Alexander Campbell received BAPTIST BAPTISM, and died with it. Did he go to heaven or hell? Campbell never did repudiate this baptism by a Baptist preacher, was he saved or lost?

Mr. Davis was counting on the likelihood that you the reader would never take the time to do a little research at the local library! Did Alexander Campbell receive Baptist baptism? Notice the answer to this question in Mr. Campbell’s own words: “On leaving in the morning, he (Thomas Campbell) asked me when, where, and by whom, I intended to be immersed. As to the place, I preferred to be baptized near home, among those who were accustomed to attend my preaching; as to the time, just as soon as I could procure an acceptable Baptist minister. The nearest, and, indeed, the only one known to me, was Elder Matthias Luse, living some thirty miles from my residence. I promised to let my father know the time and place, as soon as I had obtained the consent of Elder Luse. “Immediately I went in quest of an administrator, of one who practiced what he preached. I spent the next evening with Elder Luse. Having on a former occasion, heard him preach, but not on that subject, I asked him into what formula of faith he immersed. His answer was that ‘the Baptist church required candidates to appear before it, and on a narration of their experience, approved by the church, a time and place were appointed for the baptism.’ “To this I immediately demurred, saying:—That I knew no scriptural authority for bringing a candidate for baptism before the church to be examined, judged, and approved, by it, as a prerequisite to his baptism. To which he simply responded:—‘It was the Baptist custom.’ ‘But was it,’ said I, ‘the apostolic custom?’ He did not contend that it was, admitting freely that such was not the case from the beginning. ‘But,’ said he, ‘if I were to depart from my usual custom, they might hold me to account before the Association.’ ‘Sir,’ I replied, ‘there is but one confession of faith that I can make, and into that alone can I consent to be baptized.’ ‘What is that?’ said he. ‘Into the belief that Jesus is the one Christ, the confession into which the first converts were immersed.’ I have set out to follow the apostles of Christ and their master, and I will be baptized only into the primitive Christian faith.’ “After a short silence he replied saying.— ‘I believe you are right, and I will risk the consequences; I will get, if possible, one of our Redstone preachers to accompany me. Where do you desire to be baptized?’ ‘In Buffalo Creek, on which I live, and on which I am accustomed to preach. My Presbyterian wife,’ I added, ‘and, perhaps, some others will accompany me.’ “On the appointed day, Elder Henry Spears, from the Monongahela, and Matthias Luse, according to promise, met us at the place appointed. It was the 12th of June, 1812, a beautiful day; a large and attentive concourse was present, with Elder David Jones of Eastern Pennsylvania. My father made an elaborate address on the occasion. I followed him with a statement of the reasons of my change of views, and vindicated the primitive institution of baptism, and the necessity of personal obedience. “To my satisfaction, my father, mother, and eldest sister, my wife, and three other persons beside myself, were that same day immersed into the faith of that great proposition on which the Lord himself said that he would build his church. The next Lord’s day, some twenty others made a similar confession, and so the work progressed, until in a short time almost an hundred persons were immersed. This company, as far as I am informed, was the first community in this country that was immersed into that primitive, simple, and most significant confession of faith in the divine person and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ, without being brought before a church to answer certain doctrinal questions, or to give a history of all their feelings and emotions, in those days falsely called ‘Christian experience,’ as if a man could have Christian experience before he was a Christian.” (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. for, 1848, pgs. 280, 283; emphasis added)

It is amply clear from Mr. Campbell’s own words that he did not receive Baptist baptism, but was baptized into Christ, and furthermore, Elder Luse agreed that the standard Baptist custom was unscriptural, thus another of Mr. Davis’ arguments is eviscerated! When anybody, anywhere, at anytime, obeys “from the heart” (Rom.6:17,18) as these did, understanding that faith, repentance, confession of Christ as the Son of God, and being buried in the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior in baptism, according to the apostolic precept (Acts 2:38), they are added to Christ’s church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47), and by doing this, the baptized penitents constitute a local congregation of the church of Christ. The fact that Mr. Campbell and some others learned and obeyed the truth through an honest study of the scriptures in no way means that they founded some new denomination known as the “Campbellites,” per Mr. Davis' malevolent slur. Because the word of God is the seed (Lk.8:11) of the kingdom, and since every seed brings forth after its own kind, this seed produces a Christian, and a Christian only, a member of the coporate body/church of Christ which is undenominational, i.e., the original cannot be a division off of itself! The gospel seed produces a Christian every time just as a bean seed produces a bean plant rather than a corn stalk! The Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc., are all various plants not originating from the original seed of the gospel. They are different if name, doctrine, practice, and time and place of establishment foretold in Moses and the prophets (Isa.2:1-4). The Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul very clearly condemned division, notice: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” (1 Cor.1:10). Likewise, the apostle condemned counterfeit preachers speaking a pseudo-gospel (2Cor.11:13-15; Gal.1:6-9).

“... was he saved or lost?” Provided he lived faithful till his death, he is saved! (Jn.5:24; 11:26; Rom.8:1; Rev.14:13).

47. What kind of Baptism did the Apostles receive? Were they saved or Lost?

The “...baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mk.1:4). They also received the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2)

48. What kind of Baptism did these Disciples who were baptized by the Apostles on the authority of Christ during his personal ministry receive? John 4:1-2. Were they saved or Lost? Was this before Pentecost?

Answered in # 15.

49. How was Abraham Saved? David? Enoch? John the Baptist? The Virgin Mary? The Demoniac of Gedara? The Penitent thief?"

This is the ‘shuffling’ deception again. Enoch was saved because, “...he pleased God,” (Heb.11:5). David, John, Mary, the demoniac, and the thief on the cross all lived under the law of Moses. David, who was a child of God under the law of Moses sinned, by committing adultery with Bathsheba, and, had her husband Uriah killed. Since he was a child of God (born of the seed lineage of Abraham) he had to repent of those sins, and pray for God’s forgiveness. The thief, who likewise was an erring child of God, repented, and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Jesus forgave his sins, as He had done at other times (such as in Mk.2:5; Jn.8:1-11; Lk.7:48) to some who were also erring children of God (Jews) under Torah. No one today, under Christ’s law can be justified by the law of Moses which was never able to remit sins in the first place, (Gal.5:4; Heb.10:4). (Abraham is explained in #’s 51 and 98.)

50. How were sinners saved between the Crucifixion of Christ and the Day of Pentecost?

By having repented of their sins, and submitted to the baptism of John (Mt.3:5,6) in preparation of obedience to the law of Christ, and remaining faithful to the law of Moses, just as Jesus taught his contemporaries (Mt.19:17). Christ’s law did not take effect until Pentecost. He plainly told His apostles (after He had risen), “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk.24:46,47).

51. How is Abraham the FATHER of the FAITHFUL when he was not Baptized by a Campbellite preacher?

The abject absurdity of this question is astounding! “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” The scripture was fulfilled when Abraham’s faith motivated him to do what God had commanded. His faith was made perfect by his works (v. 22) thus James says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:22-24). Mr. Davis demonstrates spectacularly that he has no clue of prolepsis. An excellent example of proplepsis is found when Jehovah tells Joshua "See I have given into thine hand Jericho," (Joshua 6:2) before even telling him the requirements of taking the city. Then we read, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days, (Heb 11:30). God tells Joshua "I HAVE (past tense) given into thine hand," but it was not until after the Israelites obeyed the commandments of God, through (works) faith that what was stated proleptically, came to fruition. James says in chapter 2 that the scripture (Gen.22:16-18) was fulfilled which said "Abraham believed God...." This charade of Mr. Davis leaves him embarrassed as he fails to realize that Paul, also speaking of Abraham's faith, said, "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were," (Rom.4:17). This is another divine example of the already but not yet when God says a thing that is just as sure as done, because He said it, even though it hadn't been fulfilled yet. The whole purpose of these questions is to validate the doctrine of faith only! You the reader can see that the Bible clearly says that it is not by faith only. Which will you choose to believe?

52. Since the same FAITH dwelled in Timothy, his Mother and his Grandmother, were they not all saved alike?

Again, Mr. Davis tries to establish the doctrine of faith only. The “faith” Paul is referring to is an unpretentious faith (unfeigned, 2 Tim.1:5). An unpretentious, or sincere faith will always motivate one to obey the voice of God, just as Abraham was said to be justified after his faith moved him to offer his son as a sacrifice. Because Abraham obeyed the commands of God, James could accurately say, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:21-24). The only way this passage can be harmonized with Romans 4:1-3 is this: God gave a command to Abraham; because he faithfully obeyed this command, rather than trying to concoct his own method of pleasing God, he was justified by his works. He was not justified by works, (religious acts of his own creation, Rom.4:1-3) but yet he was justified by works (works which were commandments of God, James 2:24). And this accords perfectly with Titus 3:5-7, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, [religious acts of our own concoction] but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing [baptism] of regeneration [spiritual rebirth] , and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace...” Baptism (a command of God, Mt.28:19) is not an act of man’s invention, and when ones’ faith leads him through repentance, confession and baptism, he then is, “justified by his grace.”

53. Who preached the Gospel to Abraham? Galatians 3:8.

The scriptures, i.e., He who inspired the scriptures. This promise was originally given to Abraham (Gen.12:1-3) proleptically (Rom.4:17), and reiterated in Gen.22:18, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Jesus said, “...that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk.24:47). “5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” “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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:5,38-41). God foresaw these events and promised Abraham that through his seed (Christ) these blessings would be for ALL nations.

54. What Prophet in the Old Testament prophesied of BAPTISM?

Joel! “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call” (Joel 2:32). Now, notice what Peter (who had the keys of the kingdom, Mt.16:19) said on the day of Pentecost: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh... 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:... 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. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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.” Peter specifically said that the events transpiring on that day was a direct fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, even quoting the scripture of calling on the name of the Lord. How did Peter say that they were to call on the name of the Lord? Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” Why did Peter say nothing about accepting Christ as your personal Savior? Why did Peter not tell these people to pray the sinner’s prayer for the remission of sins? Why do Baptist preachers loudly tell sinners to accept Christ as their personal savior, and to get down on their knees and pray the sinner’s prayer, when the Bible says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...?” Notice also what Ananias, under explicit directions from Jesus Himself (Acts 9:10-15), told Saul to do: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts 22:16; see Acts 9:1-18). Perhaps Mr. Davis avoided using this verse in these questions to prevent you the reader from understanding the fact that even after Saul had spoken to the Lord, fasted and prayed for three days, he still had his sins! Obviously Mr. Davis didn’t want you to realize that Saul’s sins were washed away in baptism, and I’m sure he didn’t want you to see that “calling on the name of the Lord” is synonymous with, “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt.28:19).

55. Did Peter preach to Cornelius that all the prophets bore witness to the fact that whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sin? Acts 10:43. Do you believe what Peter said?

Yes he did, and yes I do.

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk.24:47). Is “believing” not essential to salvation simply because Jesus didn’t mention it in this verse? “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Mt.28:19). Is “believing” not necessary simply because it is not written in this verse? You must realize that when you read a verse that says faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom.10:17), then you can write it down that hearing the gospel is one requirement leading to salvation. When you read, “But without faith it is impossible to please him:” then you can write it down that faith is also a step toward (Acts 20:21) Christ. Then, you read that repentance is commanded of all men everywhere (Acts 17:30), then you can write it down also, and you cannot eliminate “hearing” nor “believing” just because they are not mentioned in this verse which only mentions repentance. When you read, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.10:32), then you can write it down. Then, you turn and read, “Baptism doeth also now save us...” (1 Pet.3:21), then you can write that down as a requirement just as hearing, believing, repenting, and confession are also requirements because they are commanded in other verses. You can never negate baptism, or repentance, or confession, just because there are verses (such as Acts 10:43) that only mention believing, so to all Baptist preachers I say, “write that down!”

56. If Peter preached Baptism, FOR or IN ORDER TO REMISSION OF SIN in Acts 2:38, why did he not preach the same thing to Cornelius in Acts 10:42,43?

You should see from the previous answer the folly of this question. Who was the group of people referred to as, “...all that believed...” in Acts 2:44? If you the reader will read from Acts 2, verses 38-44, you will see that the ones whom Peter told to repent and be baptized, gladly received his word and were promptly baptized, and they were referred to as, “...all that believed....” When one will “believe” to the saving degree, i.e., when he will, “...believe to the saving of the soul” (Heb.10:39), he will believe it necessary to do the will of the Lord (Mt.7:21), just as Abraham did. According to Mr. Davis’ reasoning, the chief rulers of the synagogue were saved when they believed, even though they refused to confess Christ (Jn.12:42). They believed, but not to the saving degree. Agrippa had almost enough faith to become a Christian (Acts 26:1-28), but almost is not enough, is it? Almost will not save the soul!! Consider again the Ephesian disciples who had only the baptism of John in Acts 19:1-6. “...John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (vs.4,5). This proves beyond any doubt that to “believe on Christ” to the saving degree is to be baptized in the name of the Lord, which is baptism in water (Mt.28:19; Acts 10:47,48), for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), to get into Christ (Gal.3:27), thus becoming a new creature (2 Cor.5:17).

57. In your sugar text which you yourself do not understand (Acts 2:38) how many words BETWEEN the word BAPTISM and the word REMISSION? You will have to cut 11 words out of your text before you can JOIN BAPTISM TO REMISSION OF SIN. What means these 11 words - which you and your brethren always avoid?

First, I know of no faithful gospel preacher who avoids any of these words, and, whether or not these words are quoted every time does not change the force of Peter’s statement. Mr. Davis was just grasping at straws here! Jesus specifically said that repentance and remission of sins would be preached, and he commissioned the apostles with the command to preach and baptize the believing penitents.

Now, “What means these 11 words...?” Let’s see:

“...every one of you...” The command of, “Repent and be baptized...” was given to all sinners. “...in the name of Jesus Christ...” All sinners are to repent and be baptized by the authority of God’s Son. “...for...” Baptist doctrine deceives people by telling them that the preposition “for” means “because of ” rather than, “in order to.” The word “for” in Acts 2:38 comes from the Greek word “eis.” Mr. Thayer, a noted Greek scholar, says it is, “a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit; into, to, towards, for, among.” (Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 183.)

J. W. Willmarth was a reputable Baptist preacher, scholar, and writer. For many years, he edited the BAPTIST QUARTERLY. In 1877, he wrote a series of lessons on “Baptism and Remission.” His teaching on the importance of baptism was very much opposed to the common position of Baptists then, and those of today, yet he taught the truth on the subject. I would like now to quote some of his statements:

“A remarkable example of the use of “eis” to denote the purpose of actions, and that, too, in connection with the remission of sins, occurs in Matthew 26:28. Instituting the Holy communion, our Lord said, in giving the cup to his disciples, ‘Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for (‘peri” in behalf of) many, for (“eis” in order to) remission of sins.’ Eis here expresses the purpose, not of the Jews in murdering our Saviour, but of Jesus himself, in ‘laying down his life.’ He ‘gave his life a ransom for many.’ The remission of sins was the end toward which his action was directed, so far as this statement is concerned. In that end the act terminated, the purpose was accomplished.

“With this example in mind let us examine Acts 2:38. Peter had just been charging home upon the consciences of his Jewish hearers the enormous guilt which they had incurred by rejecting and murdering the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit, in his converting power, accompanied the word. Very many, pricked in their heart, or more properly, pierced to the heart, cried out: ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ Peter, answering these perishing and self—condemned sinners, replied: ‘Repent and be each one of you baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) remission of sins.’

“What is the force of eis here?

“These words are Peter’s answer to unsaved, but awakened sinners, forced by pungent conviction of guilt and danger to ask, What shall we do? i.e. of course, do in order to secure forgiveness of their great sin. It is natural to suppose that Peter told them what to do in order to secure that end, and he uses the very same phrase used in Matthew 26:28, unto remission of sins. Is it possible to doubt that eis here marks the relation of certain actions to the end sought and purposed, namely the remission of sins?

“If Peter had meant in order to declare or profess remission, he would have said so. As he did not, what right does anyone have to insert a word or an idea here of which there is not the slightest trace of in this language? It is true that eis is sometimes equivalent to ‘with reference to’ but even then it would here mean the reference of purpose or aim. ‘In order to declare (or symbolize)’ would be a monstrous translation of eis; and if it ever means ‘with reference to’ in the sense of a retrospective and commemorative reference to a past event, we have failed to find an example.

“It is our business, simply and honestly, to ascertain the exact meaning of the inspired originals, as the sacred penmen intended to convey it to the mind of the contemporary reader. Away with the question — ‘What ought Peter to have said in the interest of orthodoxy?’ The real question is, What did Peter say, and what did he mean, when he spoke on the Day of Pentecost, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

“Acts 2:38 is a very important passage — the keynote of the New Testament teaching as to obedience to the Gospel. For the first time inquiring sinners throng the inspired Twelve with the question, What shall we do? on their lips; and the answer is invested with the great significance of the first formal direction given by the apostles to inquirers. The occasion was striking and wonderful; and here we may well believe was furnished a precedent which all the primitive preachers of the Gospel were sure substantially to follow. This much is clear from the passage before us: that there is a relation between Baptism and Remission; and such a relation as warranted and required Peter to use the language which he did. He meant what he said.” (From BAPTIST QUARTERLY, July, 1877.)

Yes, the people on Pentecost were baptized “for” (in order to) the remission of sins, just as Jesus shed his blood “for” (in order to) the remission of sins. The word “eis” in Acts 2:38 does not mean “because of ” and is never so translated by the scholars of the world. Consider the following list of scholars:

This is what the truth reveals, and only the truth will save!

58. What is the Greek Word translated or rather Anglicized into the word Christ in Acts 2:38? Why don't you put the exact Greek word in the text and then read Acts 2:38 to your people and quit making a childish play on the preposition FOR? When you do this you find complete harmony with Acts 10:43 and John 3:16 -Just a little kink right here give the people the original there- you won't have to notice the preposition so technically.

I have completely missed the point here. To “Anglicize” simply means “to make into English,” and the Greek word for “Christ” is “Christos” which means, “anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ” (Strong’s). Vine’s expository dictionary states, “It is added as an appellative to the proper name ‘Jesus,’ e.g., John 17:3, the only time when the Lord so spoke of Himself;... It is distinctly a proper name in many passages...” (pg.192). An “appellative” is simply a name, and in Mt.1:16 “... Jesus, who is called Christ,” “called” here means, “surnamed” Christ, says Joseph Henry Thayer (pg. 673). How does this have any bearing, or change what is taught about the name of Jesus Christ by anybody? Furthermore, even if we could omit the word, “Christos,” it wouldn’t change the fact that this verse would still say specifically that repentance and baptism are required in order to have the remission of sins! There is just no way around it, without changing God’s word. It was rather hypocritical of Mr. Davis to accuse gospel preachers of being “childish” (for simply quoting what the Bible says) when he has exhibited profound arrogance and malice in these questions. The reason Mr. Davis accuses church of Christ preachers of “making a childish play on the preposition FOR,” and suggests that you shouldn’t “notice the preposition so technically,” is because there’s no way around the fact that the little preposition “for” spoken by the Holy Spirit through Peter, decrees that remission of sins cannot be had without baptism!

59. Does the word WATER as used in John 3:5 mean Baptism? Why didn't Christ say what he meant to say? If he really meant Baptism -when he said water- by the same reasoning - He evidently meant Baptism in the next Chapter (John 4:7-15). Read again the story of the Woman at the well -substitute the word Baptism for Water everywhere it is found in the story exactly as you substitute the word Baptism for water in John 3:5- see what a story you make. False Doctrines always lead to muddy water. Where the Bible speaks -we speak.

I’m glad that Mr. Davis admitted that the term “water” in this verse actually means water. Some say “water” symbolizes the word of God. This statement is contradicted by Eph.5:26, where Paul speaks of the church being cleansed “...with the washing of water by the word.” If it is a washing of water by or with the word, they cannot be the same. Again, some try to make it read “living water,” as in Jn.4:10 and Jn.7:38. This idea is refuted by Revelation 22:17. The expression, “water of life,” means the spiritual blessings in Christ, which are only enjoyed by those already born again. In every passage where water is figuratively used, the qualifying term is always found. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus that one must be born of “living water,” or “the water of life”; he simply said, “Born of water.”

Another common teaching is that “born of water” refers to the natural birth and “born of the Spirit” refers to the new birth. This theory does not agree with the language of Jesus. He did not say, “except a baby be born of water and a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He said, “Except a man be born again, born of water and of the Spirit, he (the man, already born physically) cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The natural birth is not the birth of water in John 3:5. Amniotic fluid is the substance in the natural birth, not water. (See Webster’s Dictionary.) Nicodemus had been born of human parents—the natural birth; now Christ tells him he must be born again—not physically, but of water and of the Spirit (both) in order to become a citizen of the kingdom of God. Nicodemus had not asked how a child could be born into the world, but, “How can a man be born when he is old?” The answer was, “He is born of water and of the Spirit.”

Then there are others who say, “I do not know what Jesus meant in John 3:5, but I know he did not mean water.” How do they know this? Certainly not from the Bible! The reason ‘water’ does not mean water to some people is that it makes baptism essential to salvation. They do not want to believe that baptism is a divine condition of pardon, but any theory which says that Jesus does not allude to baptism in the term water in this passage is misleading. By the order of Christ, baptism is made essential for obtaining all blessings of the kingdom of God.

All scholars agree that the word "water" in John 3:5 refers to baptism. According to William Wall, a reliable ecclesiastical historian of the Church of England, all writers from the time of Christ to the days of John Calvin said “born of water” meant baptism. Note his words: “There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism. And if it be not so understood it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, any more than of wood. . . . All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Saviour, (John 3:5) VERILY, VERILY, I SAY UNTO THEE, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD,” of baptism...... I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gave another interpretation, which he confesses to be new.” (Wall, History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, pp. 92, 443).

Dean Alford, a noted Greek scholar, said: “There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that gennethenai ek hudatos (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism-- gennethenai ek pneumatos (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped.” (Greek Testament, notes on John 3:5, Vol. 1, p. 714).

Timothy Dwight, once president of Yale College, said: “To be ‘born of water,’ as here intended, is, in my view, to be baptized. ... That to be born of water, and of the Spirit, is the same thing with being born again, must be admitted by every one, who is willing that our Saviour should speak good sense, since he obviously mentions in this whole discourse but one birth.” (System of Theology, sermon C L V I, Vol. V. p. 223).

H. A. W. Meyer, a noted Greek commentator of the Lutheran Church, in his notes on John 3:5, said: “the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church contend) has certainly its basis in this passage.” (Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 124).

Albert Barnes, a commentator of the Presbyterian Church, said on John 3:5: “By water, here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5” (Barnes on the New Testament, Luke-John, p. 210).

J. W. Wilmarth, a noted Baptist scholar, said: “Baptism and Renewal by the Spirit are the conditions of true citizenship in the kingdom of God on earth.” (Baptist Quarterly July, 1877, p. 309).

J. R. Graves, a prominent Baptist writer, said that “born of water” refers to the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, and nothing else. He then added that this is “an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages.” ( Tennessee Baptist, Oct. 30, 1886, p. 5).

The effort to destroy the reference to baptism in John 3:5 is of modern origin. The whole religious world agreed, until recent years, that to be born of water meant to be baptized. Truly, it can be said that this interpretation “is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages,” and that all attempts to get rid of this fact have sprung from “doctrinal prejudices.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that “water” in John 3:5 refers to water baptism, and nothing else. Baptism is the only religious ceremony pertaining to salvation which makes use of water. In all of the Christian system, water is never used in any act except baptism.

According to the Bible, in baptism one is submerged completely and comes forth from the water. This is why Jesus refers to baptism as a birth of water. When the Lord died, His soul went to hades and from it he came forth; hence, he was born from the dead ones, and Paul declared him to be “...the first-born from the dead...” (Col. 1:18). If to arise out from the dead ones means to be born from the dead, then to arise from the water means to be born of water. There is nothing which corresponds to a birth of water in all of God’s scheme of redemption except resurrection from the waters of baptism!

Paul said, “...I have begotten you through the gospel,” and the gospel is God’s power to save (Rom.1:16). James says, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth...” (James 1:18). “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet.1:22,23). The word is the sword of the Spirit, (Eph.6:17), and the Spirit’s use of His instrument (the sword) pierces the heart (Acts 2:37), thus we see the Spirit’s role in the new birth, but what about the water? What role does the water play in the new birth? “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7). What does the phrase, “by the washing of regeneration” mean? “...through the washing of rebirth...” (NIV) “...through the water of rebirth...” (NRSV) “...through a bathing of regeneration...” (YLT) “...through a second birth...” (ISV) “...by the fountain of the new birth...” (Tyndale’s). There can be no doubt that Titus 3:5 is dealing with the same “new birth” that Jesus was describing to Nicodemus. “Washing” here comes from the same Greek root word that the term “wash” comes from, in Acts 22:16, notice: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The scriptures (as well as all the writers of antiquity) show very clearly that the new birth consists of water (baptism) and Spirit (begotten by His instrument, the word).

60. The sermon to Nicodemus was BEFORE Pentecost- Did Christ jump the gun by preaching to him when Pentecost had not come.

No. Both John, and Jesus were already preaching, “...Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt.4:17), and both were already preaching baptism, (which Mr. Davis acknowledged in # 48; more incoherent deceptive double talk, again) and He told Nicodemus that the new birth would put one into the kingdom of God.

61. Is the term "CHURCH OF GOD" a Scriptural term?

Yes, this term is just as scriptural as, “...the church of the firstborn...” (Heb.12:23), “...the house of God...” and “...the church of the living God...” (1 Tim.3:15), but does this justify the Baptist name which is not a scriptural term in regards to the church? In the phrase, “the church of God,” to whom does “God” refer: “God” the Father, “God” the Son, or “God” the Holy Spirit? All three in the Godhead are referred to as “God,” so, to whom does the church of God belong? “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” (Acts 20:28). Who shed His blood to purchase His church? Since He purchased the church, then doesn’t the church belong to Him? Is my name on your car title --- or is your name on your car title, because you purchased it?! Since Christ purchased the church, it belongs to Him, and because it belongs to Him, it wears His name, hence, Christ’s church, the church of Christ. Mr. Davis plays the “there’s nothing in a name” game by saying, “We submit that it is just as Scriptural to call the church, ‘The church of Asia’ as it is to call it, ‘The church of Christ’” (A. A. Davis, The Baptist Story, pg. 140) Well I submit that Asia didn’t shed her blood to purchase the church, nor is being in Christ reference a geographical location!

62. Do you recognize people who call themselves CHURCH OF GOD?

If by “recognize” Mr. Davis meant, “fellowship and endorse things the Bible does not teach,” no.

63. Does wearing a Scriptural NAME alone mean that BODY is a Scriptural Body? Upon that grounds do you refuse to recognize the Holiness people who call themselves by the name CHURCH OF GOD?

Wearing a scriptural name alone does not justify any more than the doctrine of faith only! Furthermore, the term, “church of God” is not a scriptural name, because the term, “God” is not a name. The term, “God” is a word which means, “a deity.” The term, “Christ” however, is a surname as pointed out in # 58, thus the scriptural name of the Lord’s body is the church of Christ.

64. If those people are going to Hell in spite of their name (According to your doctrine they are all lost), Then it will take MORE THAN A BIBLE name to save them -will it not?

Yes, one must be scriptural in name as well as in doctrine, practice, and, time and place of establishment. It is not my doctrine, it is Christ’s doctrine! “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” (Acts 4:12). Since there is “none other name...whereby we must be saved,” and Paul addressed all congregations of the Lord’s body as the churches of Christ (Rom.16:16), then the Baptist name is unscriptural, as well as all others.

65. If it takes more than a BIBLE NAME to save the Holiness, this they will admit: Will it take more than a Bible name to save you? Will you admit it?

Answered in 63 & 64. Here, Mr. Davis constructs his Straw Man as he attempts to justify different denominations wearing different names, but this is an utter impossibility! Consider this passage: “Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Mt.17:1-5). If God didn’t want three institutions of worship then, do you think He’s happy today with some 450 denominations in America alone? Here are all of these man made denominations, different in name, doctrine, practice, and place of origin, but, all claim that He’s the founder, and that He ordains all of them. This is a mockery of God! We are told that it is all right for one person to stand for Baptist doctrine, and another person to stand for Methodist doctrine, but it is not all right for one to stand for both the Methodist and Baptist Doctrines at the same time. To do so would bring the charge of hypocrisy or insanity upon you. If it will make me a hypocrite to belong to more than one because of the contradictory doctrines, what does it make the Son of God? Is Jesus a Baptist? If so, is He also a Methodist? Is He standing for the Baptist doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy now, and at the same time over in the Methodist Church, is He standing for the possibility of apostasy? “Is Christ divided?” asked Paul in condemning denominationalism! “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor.1:10-15). Mr. Davis’ justification of denominationalism is anti-scriptural, and anti-God! “To Titus, mine own son after the common faith...” (Titus 1:4). There is only one faith (Eph.4:5), the “common” (shared by all) faith, which is a “working faith” (Gal.5:6), required to please God (Heb.11:6), which comes by hearing the word of God (Rom.10:17).

Actually, Mr. Davis explained it best when he himself said, “God will bless all the truth that any preacher preaches no matter what name he bears. If he preaches 99 falsehoods and just preaches 1 truth, God will bless that truth, but he will not bless the falsehoods. Now the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim.3:15). There is no error at all in the church of Jesus Christ. In human movements, you will find some truth or they could never have existed at all” (A. A. Davis, The Baptist Story, pgs. 85,86; emphasis added). Which would you the reader rather be a member of: human movements such as the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., in which Mr. Davis admits may be as little as one in a hundred truths preached, or the church of Christ in which “There is no error at all?”

66. Were the Converts and Disciples called CHRISTIANS on the Day of Pentecost? Were they saved? The Antioch Believers (Acts 11:26) were first to be called CHRISTIANS (10 years after Pentecost). Were the Antioch Believers any more saved than the Pentecost Believers? Did they call THEMSELVES Christians- or were they CALLED CHRISTIANS?

When the penitient believers are baptized into Christ, they became “...such as should be saved,” (Acts 2:38-47). Some, cannot be more saved than others. Since Acts 2:47 says, “... the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved,” and as we’ve already seen in # 61, the church belongs to Christ, He added them to His church, the church of Christ, thus they became members of His body, even though they weren’t called “Christians” until Acts 11:26. This still in no way justifies the name “Baptist” which is not a scriptural name for a church. There is no Biblical record of any church in the New Testament wearing the name “Baptist,” and since this is an undeniable fact, Baptist preachers attempt to discredit the one name which we insist is the only scriptural name for a follower of Christ to wear.

67. Did Jesus or His Apostles anywhere in the 4 Gospels use the word Christians? Did Jesus know what to call his Followers? If it is of Divine Origin-why did not the name Originate with Jesus the True Authority in matters of religion?

This sounds as if Mr. Davis was arguing that the name “Christian” is not scriptural. How could it be any more original? CHRISTian!

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet.4:16). “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called” (James 2:7)? Since the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to call Christ’s disciples “Christians,” then it follows that it is of divine origin. “And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name,” (Isa.62:2). Let Mr. Davis or any person for that matter show where any New Testament writer or speaker said disciples were called "Baptists."

68. Did Jesus say to Nicodemus "Ye Must be born again" or did He say "Ye must be Baptized and wear the name Christian", Which?

“Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” (Mt.16:20) Everything in its due time!

69. Were the members of "Church of God at Corinth" LOST because Paul failed to call them CHURCH OF CHRIST?

Mr. Davis has egg on his face since Paul wrote the book of Romans while at Corinth, and said, “...the churches of Christ salute you,” (Rom.16:16). Paul referred to all the congregations of the Lord’s body collectively as the churches of Christ. Did he omit the one wherein he was when he penned these words??? Surely you can see that Paul did in fact refer to the church at Corinth as one congregation of the church of Christ. “Now ye are the body of Christ...” (1 Cor.12:27). Since the Bible very clearly states that the “body” is the “church” (Col.1:18; Eph.1:22,23), you can now see that the church at Corinth was in fact the church of Christ by Paul’s own words.

70. Is it possible for anyone to be a Believer who is a member of a church not called the CHURCH OF CHRIST?

No. Those who become, “...such as should be saved,” are added to Christ’s church by the Lord Himself. The Lord has not promised to add believing penitents to any institution other than His church, and has not commanded, nor even suggested that once we become a Christian, that we then go and join some local denomination. Ask any Baptist preacher if you can be saved, i.e., become a Christian, without believing Baptist doctrine, and he will tell you, “yes.” Ask the same preacher if you can become a Christian without believing the gospel, and he will tell you, “no.” Since Jesus said, “...he that believeth not [the gospel] shall be damned” (Mk.16:16), then the conclusion is inescapable, that Baptist doctrine is not part of the gospel. Baptists admit that you can be a member of the New Testament church, the kingdom of God, before, and without being a member of the Baptist church, and this proves by their own admission that the Baptist church and the New Testament church are two different institutions, entered at two different times, by two different processes, therefore, the Baptist church cannot be the New Testament church, and the Lord has only promised to save the one body, His body, His church, the church of Christ (Eph.5:23).

71. Were these people lost who were members of the Church of God at Corinth?

They were Christians, because at the preaching of Paul, they heard, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8), but there existed many errors among them which Paul was instructing them to correct. (see 1 Cor.5:1-11; 11:1-16; 11:16-29; 14:33-35)

72. Were there any Churches in the New Testament -not called by the name- CHURCH OF CHRIST? Were their members saved or lost?

No, as pointed out in 69 & 70. Was there ever just one instance in the New Testament of some congregation(s) called the Baptist church, or Methodist, or any of these denominational names we are accustomed to today? Since there isn’t, that is rock solid scriptural proof that the Baptist church is not of divine origin! What’s even more bizarre is that Mr. Davis even admits it in his own words! Notice: “He did not call us Baptists. He could have done it, but He did not do it. I am going to show you where that name came from in a little while. We do not claim that it is of divine origin at all.” “...Ana-Baptists. Rebaptizers, people who baptize you again. A nickname, just as you call a red headed boy, Red, Ana-Baptists, re-baptizers, people who baptize you again” (A. A. Davis, The Baptist Story, pg. 47, 58). Can you imagine trying to convince people that they should be a member of a church that is not of divine origin? This caps the absurdity stack!!!

73. Is the term THE CHURCH OF CHRIST found as a TITLE to any one CHURCH in the Bible anywhere? Give CASE AND NUMBER OF ROM. 16:16.

Even if there wasn’t (which there is, see # 69), it still doesn’t justify the Baptist name, which the author of, “The Trail Of Blood” admits can only be traced back to the third century, and was only a “nickname” for Christians! “This compound word [Ana-Baptist] applied as a designation of some certain of Christians was first found in history during the third century ...” (pg.55, #3). “The name ‘Baptist’ is a ‘nickname’ and was given to them by their enemies... The name, however, has become fixed and is willingly accepted and proudly borne” (pg.39, #10). Does the Bible justify attaching nicknames to the scriptural name of Christian? (see Acts 4:12). What has happened is this: Jesus established His church according to prophecy (e.g., Isa.2:2,3) and after the decease of the first Christian converts there arose the false doctrine of infant baptism. The Christians who held to the truth about the purpose of baptism would baptize those who had been baptized as infants, and those who favored infant baptism despised the Christians for so doing, and in ridicule, called them re-baptizers, or Ana-Baptizers. Then, sometime post-reformation, Baptist preachers seeking to justify their denomination began to study history, and stumbled upon this nickname, and laid claim to it as being their denomination, but even then, it could be traced back no further than the third century, hence, it is not to be found in the Bible. Since faith comes by hearing the word of God (the Bible), and whatsoever is not of faith (not in the Bible) is sin, then because the Baptist church is not to be found in the Bible, it is sin!

74. Where was your CHURCH OF CHRIST when Alexander Campbell was being baptized by a Baptist preacher?

Eph.3:21; 1 Pet.1:25; Mt.18:20; Heb.12:28; Even though there were many people throughout church history who became apostate, there were always some faithful Christians somewhere,... unless these scriptures are wrong.

75. Was Elder Luce, the Baptist preacher who Baptized Campbell, a Christian? Did Baptist Baptism put Alexander Campbell into the Church of Christ? If not, when and how did Campbell become a member of the Church of Christ?

No, he was a Baptist. No, Baptist baptism (preceded by a vote, see # 44) puts one into the Baptist denomination. Look again at # 46 and you’ll see from Mr. Campbell’s own words that he (as well as Elder Luse) understood that baptism was, “...for (in order to) the remission of sins...,” and he “...obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine...” (Rom.6:3-6,17,18), thus his obedience put him into Christ (Gal.3:27; Rom.6:3-6), into His church (Acts 2:38,41,47; 1 Cor.12:13; Col.1:18), even though a non Christian assisted him in baptism. Again note that Elder Luse freely admitted that the practice of a person coming before the Baptist church to give a narration of their ‘Christian’ experience followed by a vote of the church has no scriptural authority and was only a custom. If a religious practice has no scriptural authority, it cannot be done by faith (Rom.10:17) and therefore is sin! (Rom.14:23)

76. If Baptist Baptism put Campbell INTO CHRIST and HIS CHURCH -why will not Baptist Baptism do the same for people today?

Answered in the two previous questions, as well as in #’s 44 & 46.

77. If Elder Luce did not Baptize Campbell INTO Christ when and where and HOW did Campbell ever get into Christ- since he died with Baptist Baptism, and never did repudiate it?

Answered in the previous question.

78. If Campbell wee baptized into the Church of Christ by Luce's act, then was not the Church of Christ in fact already here?

This is redundant, but, Baptist baptism puts one into the Baptist organization (which wasn’t established until the early 1600,s), and yes, the church of Christ was already in existence, ever since its birth on the day of Pentecost. (see # 44)

79. Then, How could Campbell's movement, "RESTITUTIONS", "THE REFORMATION", "THE CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION", "DISCIPLES OF CHRIST', "CHURCH OF CHRIST", "CHRISTIAN CHURCH", ETC., EVER become the ORIGINAL CHURCH OF CHRIST?

Alexander Campbell’s desire was to turn people back to the pattern of the church of the New Testament. Anyone can become a member of the original church of Christ, because, the word of God is the seed of the kingdom, and every seed brings forth after its own kind. This gospel seed, when planted in the fertile soil of the heart will produce a Christian every time, and a congregation of these Christians becomes a part of the body of Christ, which is the church of Christ (Col.1:18).

80. Are you a member of the ORIGINAL GENUINE CHURCH OF CHRIST or the one that grew out of Campbell's Reform movement? The Church of which Campbell was a member, he got in by BAPTIST BAPTISM. DO YOU HAVE THAT SAME BAPTISM? Then, if not, you do NOT BELONG to the original New Testament Church, but to the one that grew out of Campbell's movement . . . SELAH.

Answered in questions 74-79. Given the information I have already presented, you should seriously question Mr. Davis’ boast of how these questions have been so victorious in every debate, discussion, etc.

81. Can you show in History anywhere on earth, a Church organized and operating as your self-styled Church of Christ operates today prior to 1826? Where was it located? What your authority? The scholarship of the world awaits your answer.

Yes! Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Crete, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Hierapolis, just to name a few! The Bible.

82. Where was YOUR CHURCH OF CHRIST from Pentecost until Campbell's day? Almost 1800 years are unaccounted for. Where were YOU and your BRETHREN?

It existed somewhere! “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever,” (Dan.2:44). “And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Mt.3:2). “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” (Mt.16:18,19). “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,...Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear,” (Heb.12:22-28). According to scripture, it began on Pentecost, and has existed ever since. The Bible is right!

83. Is it not a fact the ANTI-ORGAN wing of Campbell's movement split off a few years ago and got their younger set registered in Washington as THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

This proves that they were studying their Bibles and getting closer and closer to the pattern of the N.T. church of Christ, because there is no evidence whatsoever of the early church using mechanical instruments of music, nor being called by any name other than the church of Christ. Anyone that follows the pattern of the New Testament church, is the church of Christ.

84. All Historians trace the origin of your young set back through the organ-wing of the Campbellite Church, back to the days of Campbell, Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone. Can you trace your origin beyond this date? Are Historians all liars or just plain ignorant?

When the Bible is rejected, most of earth’s history evaporates!

85. Your Doctrine of Church and Baptismal Salvation are both Fundamental doctrines. Did you know that the Catholics, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, and one Branch of the Holiness sect, are EXACTLY in harmony with you on these points? They tell the world the same story about Baptism and Church membership that you do -- identical doctrines. Why don't you fellowship these people?

This is simply a ploy to humiliate any church of Christ member who might read these questions, and to cause others to gaze with contempt. One would think that after Mr. Davis had spent many years defending what he thought to be the truth, he would’ve been more aquatinted with those whom he fellowshiped. Methinks he knew better and just wanted to misguide whomever would read these questions. Do the denominations listed actually teach “identical doctrines” as the church of Christ? Let’s see: “The matter of the sacrament is the pouring of water....on the forehead in the figure of the cross...” Also, “The church requires a sponsor (godparent) at baptism.” (Maryknoll Catholic Dict.)

The Mormons and some Apostolics are similar only because they understand the truth about the preposition, “for” in Acts 2:38, and the Jehovah’s witnesses believe a “faith only” doctrine just as the Baptists do! “To become a friend of God, you must obtain a good knowledge of Bible truth (1 Tim.2:3,4), put faith in the things you have learned (Heb.11:6), repent of your sins (Acts 17:30,31), and turn around your course of life. (Acts 3:19) Then your love for God should move you to dedicate yourself to him. This means that in a personal, private prayer you tell him that you are giving yourself to him to do his will. --Mt.16:24; 22:37. After you have made your dedication to God, you should be baptized.” (What Does God Require of Us? 1996 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) This is exactly (except the vote) what Baptists teach; that after faith, and prayer, one should be baptized. I humbly challenge any man to meet me publicly or privately, and show me where the Bible says that one should be baptized, or pray his sins away in order to become a Christian. My name, number, and addresses are listed above.

86. Why don't you tell your people the truth about the Music Question? What means the Greek Word PSALMOS or the Hebrew word MIZMOR? Read I Cor. 14:15, and define the words as you go. BOTH THESE WORDS MEAN "TO PLAY ON THE HARP OR OTHER STRINGED INSTRUMENT." (Liddell and Scott, 28th. Ed. Clarendon Press, 1903) (Standard Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Souter, 1916) Would David be able to worship at your Church should he return to earth? If Musical Instruments are so sinful, why will a Trumpet be blown at the Resurrection Day? Will you rise and rebuke the BLOWER of the TRUMPET and refuse to fellowship HIM because he uses AN EVIL INSTRUMENT ON THAT SACRED OCCASION? Read Psalm 150 for a good tonic.

Again, when studying the Bible, you must bear in mind the difference between the first covenant, i.e., the law of Moses, and New covenant of Christ, which was inaugurated when He was crucified, (Heb 9:15-17). Even during Christ’s life time, He taught the people to keep the ten commandment law (Mt.19:17). Though the law of Moses was in the process of being taken away (2 Cor.3:6-16; Heb.8:13), and tens of thousands of Jewish Christians were still zealously observing the Mosaic law (Acts 21:20-24), there is not the slightest hint of a reference to mechanical instruments in the early church! Since the Old Testament law vanished away with the fall of Jerusalem and the demolition of the Jewish temple, we today cannot justify borrowed practices from the law of Moses. Paul specifically stated that whoever tried to be justified by the law, he was fallen from grace; furthermore, whoever tried to keep it was a debtor to keep it all, and was under the curse to keep all of it (Gal.5:3,4; 3:10); but yet, in face of these plain passages, those who seek to justify instrumental music in the Christian assembly go to the Old Testament for their verification. I am not so naive to think that I can reach everyone with reasoning, but I sincerely hope that you the reader are one of those honest souls who seek the truth. I want you to read the question once more, and notice that Mr. Davis has again defeated himself in his attempt to justify instrumental music. He did not quote all of the definition of the word “psalmos;” only the portion he feels is pertinent to his 'argument.' By claiming that the word means, “TO PLAY ON THE HARP OR OTHER STRINGED INSTRUMENT” he has eliminated singing! Think of that, we must play on an instrument, but can’t sing, if what Mr. Davis suggested is true. The reason Mr. Davis cited Liddell-Scott, and A. Souter, is because they favor instrumental music, or in other words, they said what he wanted to hear, notice: “Those who favor ‘play’ (e.g., L-S-J; A. Souter, Pocket Lexicon...) may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo” (Walter Bauer’s Greek English Lex. of the NT). There is also a reason why Mr. Davis didn’t quote all of the definition. “To move by touch, to twitch; to touch, strike the strings or chords of an instrument; ablsol. To play on a stringed instrument; to sing to music; in NT to sing praises, Rom.15:9; 1 Cor.14:15; Eph.5:19; James 5:13” (Analytical Greek Lex. W. J. Perschbacher). Please notice the N.T. usage given! It appears that Mr. Davis wants you the reader to forget that most of the time, words have more than one meaning, and you must apply the correct meaning according to the context.

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Gk. Eng. Lex., Wescott & Hort, The Analytical Gk. Lex. Zondervan Pub., Vine’s Expository Dict., all give the same definitions, and the same verses as references. “øÜëëù psalloô -- 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”

“øáëìüò psalmos -- 1) a striking, twanging 1a) of a striking the chords of a musical instrument 1b) of a pious song, a psalm” (Thayer). Mr. Davis apparently wanted to conceal the fact that the definition of both of these words can also mean to sing without instrumental accompaniment. Since Baptist preachers justify instrumental music because it is was done under the old law, then why do they not offer animal sacrifices and keep the Sabbath? Those who seek to justify musical instruments by the law of Moses are fallen from grace. Now, let’s consider some teaching in the New Testament, Christ’s covenant, which we are under today.

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD” (Lev.10:1,2). Rom.15:4 says, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning...” so what should we learn from this example of persons who attempted to worship God in a way “which he commanded them not?” The apostles were to preach what the Lord had commanded (Mt.28:18-20), and the Bible closes with the solemn warning of not to add to, take away from, nor substitute anything for what God’s word says (Rev.22:18,19). Since we are to worship God the way He has commanded, then the question is, did the apostles authorize the use of instrumental music in the worship services? “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24,25). My Bible and your Bible says that God is not worshipped with men’s hands, therefore, when men play the piano, guitar, or beat a drum, etc., they are not worshipping God, because He is not worshipped with men’s hands, but notice what the writer of Hebrews says: “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Heb.2:12). “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” (Heb.13:15). Under Christ’s law, we are governed by the New Testament in all matters of religion, not the law of Moses. Paul had this to say to the church at Ephesus: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,” (Eph.5:19). As we have seen in the definition of the word psalmns, it can mean playing an instrument, or singing and playing, or just singing. Look again at this verse and notice what Paul said; “Speaking to yourselves in psalmns...” Paul specifically eliminated the use of the instrument in the word “psalmns,” because you do not speak with an instrument, you speak with your lips (Heb.13:15). Further Paul says: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing...” “Singing” is, “_äù adoô -- to the praise of anyone, to sing” (Thayer). Singing then is, “the sacrifice of praise...the fruit of our lips...” IF Paul had ended this verse with, “...singing and making melody...,” then there might (?) be a reason to argue for the usage of instruments in the word “psallo,” but, Paul did not stop with, “making melody [psallo psallo].” He said, “...singing and making melody in you heart to the Lord.” The Bible specifically says that the melody is to be made in the heart! “... for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” (Mt.12:34). Paul used both words (psalmos, and psallo) which would allow the use of instruments, and specified both as vocal! The singing is to be accompanied with melody in the heart, not melody on an instrument! Some reason that because the Bible doesn’t specifically say not to play on instruments, that it is all right to use them, but this reasoning is faulty, because e.g., the Bible doesn’t say not to burn incense in worship, but since there is no authority for it in the NT, it cannot be done by faith (Rom.10:17), and “...whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” (Rom.14:23). If psallo means both to sing and play, then no one has obeyed the command until he has done both, i.e., the playing can no more be left off than the singing. The command is in the word! It cannot merely permit instrumental music, it either includes it (in which case it cannot be omitted), or it excludes it (in which case it cannot be used). The apostles knew Greek, spoke Greek, wrote in Greek, and were guided into all truth by the Spirit, but when they established churches of Christ (Rom.16:16), they taught them to sing -- they did not teach them to play! (Eph.5:19; 1 Cor.14:15; Col.3:16).

Mr. Davis referred to 1 Cor.14:15 as said, “Read I Cor. 14:15, and define the words as you go. The word “psalmos” is not even used in this verse! “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.” The word “sing” is “psallo,” the same as “making melody” in Eph.5:19, which Paul said was to be made in the heart (not on an instrument), and as well, in this verse, is to be done with the spirit (heart), and the understanding (heart). Mr. Davis doesn’t understand his own argument! I ask of you to consider this point: Since the prayer is to be done in the same manner as the singing, do you have the pianos, guitars, and banjos, blaring while you pray? Why not?! Consider this: When thrust into the inner prison, Paul and Silas sang (humneo) praises to God (Acts 16:25). “Humneo,” rendered “sung an hymn” (Mt.26:30, Mk.14:26), and “sang praises” (Acts 16:25), is what the Hebrew writer says it to be done in the church, notice: “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise [humneo] unto thee” (Heb.2:12). The only way these verses can be harmonized with Ephesians 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 14:15 is to leave the mechanical instruments of music where Paul left them, outside of the assembly of the saints!

The David-returning-to-Earth assertion is a colossally pitiful demonstration of Mr. Davis' desperation, and the exemplification of the fact that he cannot prove his theory with a proper exegesis!

Oh, the tired old worn out trumpet assertion! Please give that a moment of rational thought, and consider just one question: How can a spirit play a physical instrument??? Surely you can see the contemptible foolishness of this 'argument.' Regarding the resurrection / last trump, Mr. Davis greatly errs not knowing the scriptures. It is not within the scope of this work to fully develop the eschatological timing, and nature of the resurrection which can be found under the topic of "Eschatology: Realized or Future?"; however, a brief look at the seven angels in the Revelation vision who were each given a trumpet should provide enough evidence to demonstrate that this heavenly vision written in symbolic language, specified to be things which must shortly come to pass, because, the time is at hand [2000 years ago], can, in no sensible mind be construed for a pattern of Earthly worship!

Beginning in Rev.8:2, we see seven angels are given seven trumpets, and each angel in succession sounds a trumpet to pronounce a woe upon the Earth; and in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, preparing to sound the last trump, we find that the, "mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets” (10:7); then at the last trump of the last (seventh) angel, "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever" (11:15), which is chronologically linked with, "...and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints..." (11:18), all of which is set in the paradigm of destruction of "the great city...where also our Lord was crucified" (11:8).

This idea of Jehovah handing out trumpets in heaven, which is a horrible butchering of the splendor of the vision, and forging that into justification for the usage of literal instruments in the Christian assembly is a monumental testament to the abject ignorance and crass desperation of people who are going to do whatever they want to do, and belittle everyone with whom they disagree!

87. You loudly quote Mark 16:16 (First clause only), I don't believe that you or your brethren really believe Mark 16:16, any of it. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved? Only 2 things are mentioned. ARE YOU GOING TO HEAVEN? Your answer is I DON'T KNOW. HOW MANY IF'S AND PROVISOS will you have to insert into Mark 16:16, before you will take it, At least five.

This is remarkable indeed! Mr. Davis is calling repentance and confession “ifs” and “provisos” when the Bible directly commands both. (Remember how Satan denied what God said to Adam and Eve!) Did he think that a person could become a Christian without repenting of sin? “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). This verse plainly states that all men are commanded by God to repent, so do you the reader think that Mr. Davis had the right to call a commandment of God an “if” or a “proviso?” “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.10:32). What is the condition Jesus stated here as to whether or not He would confess you to His Father? Do you think Mr. Davis had the authority to call either of these Divine commandments an “if” or a “proviso?”

88. If you lose your present salvation, can you ever be saved a second time. Give a Chapter and verse for your answer.

Yes, see questions 89-98.

89. If you are saved NOW but might become UNSAVED tomorrow, would it not be wise for God to let you DIE today?

Did Mr. Davis have the right to question God’s wisdom? It is wise for us to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:12)! Questions 88-98 are Mr. Davis’ feeble attempt to advocate the false doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” or once a person has become saved, he can never so sin as to be eternally lost. Mr. Davis dodges Gal.5:4 by saying, “The Galatian text refers to churches. Some of those churches had fallen from grace. Churches do fall from grace.” But yet he also says, “A church is composed of saved people” (A. A. Davis, The Baptist Story, pgs. 45, 31). How can a church, that is composed of saved people, fall from grace, without the saved people it is composed of also falling?? (Baptist double talk again!) Let us consider a few facts blazoned across the pages of the Bible that should make it unmistakably clear as to whether or not this is a false doctrine.

“... be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev.2:10).

“... Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom.12:21).

Peter said that we are to add to our faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity, and then said, “...for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Pet.1:5-11). What if you don’t do these things? What if you’re not faithful till death, what if you are overcome with evil?

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one...” (Gal.6:1). If one could not fall, there would be none to restore. “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19,20). This is spoken to saved persons, “brethren” who were redeemed by the blood of Christ, who could err, because, no one could err from a position he has never held!

“Now the Spirit saith expressly, that in the latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim.4:1). One cannot fall away from a place he has never been, or a position he has never occupied, or a faith he has never believed. IF it is impossible for one once saved by the faith of the gospel to fall away, then this prophecy has never been fulfilled and never can be fulfilled, thus making the Holy Spirit a false prophet! (Deut.18:22)

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). Does this sound as if it is impossible for the saved to be lost?

Judas Iscariot was numbered with the twelve apostles and even had the power to cast out devils (Mt.10:8), but, “Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve” (Lk.22:3). Can Satan “enter into” a person in whom he always was?

“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal.5:4) Perhaps Baptist preachers should be forced to explain to you the reader, how some of these Galatians had fallen from grace, if they never were saved to begin with. The Greek of Gal.5:4 is significant and forceful in sustaining the fact that children of God can and did fall from grace.

Prof. A.T. Robertson, for a long time teacher of Greek in Southern Baptist University, Louisville, KY., says, “Ye are severed from Christ (katagethete apo Christou). First aorist passive of katargeo, to make null and void as in Rom.7:2,6.” (Word Pictures in the NT). The Expositor’s Greek Testament says, “This verb is applied with a comprehensive force to any destruction of growth and life, physical or spiritual, beneficial of deleterious. Joined with APO it denotes loss of some essential element of life by the severance of previous intimate relations, e.g., annulment by death of a wife’s obligations to her husband (Rom.7:2), and emancipation from the control of the law by spiritual death (Rom.6:6). Here, in like manner, it denotes paralysis of spiritual life by severance of union with Christ,” (Vo.3, pg. 184) It cannot be reasonably argued that if one falls from grace, he was never saved in the first place. Observe closely the remark that this verb, “Joined with APO it denotes loss of some essential element of life by the severance of previous intimate relations.” How could “union with Christ” be severed unless there had been such a union? On this verse, Prof. Robertson further says, “ye are fallen away from grace (tes charitos exepesate). Second aorist active indicative of ekpipto (with A variable vowel of the first aorist) and followed by the ablative case. ‘Ye did fall out of grace,’ ‘ye left the sphere of grace in Christ and took your stand in the sphere of law’ and your hope of salvation.” (op.cit., pg. 309). Consider what Peter has to say: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Pet.2:20-22) This is a nauseating but graphic picture, (but no less nauseating that the “once save always saved” doctrine) of a person once saved, but returned to his previous life of sin. Two whole chapters of the book of Hebrews (chapters 3 and 4) are written to show that a child of God can be eternally lost. The writer of Hebrews addresses the “holy brethren” and points out that the children of Israel, who were delivered (saved) from Egyptian bondage, and baptized unto Moses (1 Cor.10:1,2), perished in the wilderness because of unbelief, and then says, “So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it” (Heb.3:19-4:1). “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Heb.4:11). “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Heb.3:12-14). Why “take heed” if one cannot fall from grace?! “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt” (Heb.6:4-6).

Since Baptists teach that once people become saved, they can never so sin as to be lost, and admit as well that one can be saved before and without being a member of the Baptist church, then I humbly ask, “what is the purpose of the Baptist denomination?”

90. In that case, would you not be outliving your salvation?

“...be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev.2:10).

91. Will God let you live TOO LONG?

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain..” (Phil.1:21)

92. If He does, and you die and go to HELL, it is not God's Fault?

The idiocy, and audacity of this question is repugnant! God sent His Son who said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn.14:15), and Rom.1:20 tells us that man is without excuse. God has done much, much more than man ever deserved, and if a person chooses not to live faithful until death, and is lost, it certainly is not God’s fault!! If all men are lost, the Bible is still right! "let God be true, but every man a liar," (Rom.3:4).

93. How good will you have to be before God saves you?

One must be obedient to God’s commandments, all of them!

94. Did Jesus Die to save SINNERS or GOOD PEOPLE?

“... there is none good but one, that is, God” (Mk.10:18). All have sinned, Rom.3:23.

95. If Baptism was essential to your FIRST Salvation is it not also essential to being saved a second time?

No. This is a good example of the confusion that arises because denominational preachers refuse to accept what the Bible plainly says. If you can read in your Bible the passage given in the next question, then why can’t they do the same? I hardly think that a preacher such as Mr. Davis who read and studied his Bible for many years could not have come across this passage at least once in his career. I will be so bold as to suggest that all denominational preachers have read this passage, so why do they refuse to acknowledge what it reveals? The answer is obvious, it blows a wide hole in their doctrines of faith only and the sinner’s prayer! It’s astounding that in all my years as a Christian, I have never heard a denominational preacher mention such passages as Acts 8:22, Acts 22:16, or Jn.9:31. This is why I am so adamant that you heed the warning of Paul in 2 Cor.11:13-15, and 1 Tim.4:1 concerning the deliberate deception of countless multitudes of people. The only way that you will ever overcome this deception is to open your Bible and study for yourself.

96. Name one person in the Bible who was saved a second time ?

Simon, the sorcerer. Notice, “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done,” (Acts 8:5-13). Notice in this passage, that at the preaching of Philip, the people, as well as Simon heard, believed and were baptized, just like the Corinthians later on (Acts 18:8). This placed these people under remission of sins, i.e., saved, including Simon. Read Acts 8:14-20 and you will see that Simon committed a terrible sin by thinking that he could purchase the gift if God with money. Now we have Simon, a baptized Christian as believers would come to be called (Acts 11:26), who has sinned, so how is Simon to overcome this egregious sin, and return to his previous saved condition: by baptism again as Mr. Davis has suggested? No! Please observe what Peter told Simon to do, are you listening? “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). The first thing that probably catches you attention is what Peter told Simon to do to have his sin forgiven after becoming a Christian, is what the overwhelming majority of preachers are telling you to do to become a Christian. Simon believed and was baptized (v.13) which made him a Christian. Even if you still don’t see the necessity of baptism, it is only by extreme bias that anyone would argue that Simon was not saved after hearing, believeing and being baptized (Mark 16:16), because even by Baptist standards, he was saved because he believed!

97. Is not your entire program a matter of salvation by works?

Mr. Davis’ reasoning is faulty because if baptism is a work, and therefore has nothing to do with salvation, then by the same argument, faith cannot save either! “Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (Jn.6:28-29). If baptism doesn’t save because it is a work, then by the exact same reasoning, neither does faith, because it too is a work! It seems more than a little odd that while the Bible does say that faith is a work, Baptists say that one is not saved by works, and then teach that we are saved by faith only. Worse yet, while the Bible does not say that baptism is a work of man, preachers say that it is works just so they can assert that it does not save! This is typical though, especially from what you learned in the previous question. Mr. Davis and all who make this allegation are woefully ignorant that they are impugning God Himself, since Paul said it is God who is at work in baptizing the believer (Col.2:11-12), and, that is when the sins are cut loose from the penitent.

98. Do you know the difference in WORKS and GRACE? In Works, one does something for God: In Grace, God does something for us. Which would you rather go out to eternity with? Something you did or something God did. Which would afford the greatest JOY?

Once again, ignorance of the difference between the Old and New Testaments creates confusion. In most of the passages where Paul speaks of “works,” he is referring to the works of the law of Moses, but Baptists misinterpret his writings and assume he is teaching that there are no works of any kind for man to do to become a Christian, but just the opposite is true. Consider this: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous...” (Heb.11:4). “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house...” (Heb.11:7). “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days” (Heb 11:30). “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith...” (Heb.11:39). How did Able, Noah, and Abraham receive a good report “by faith?” When did the walls of Jericho fall down, before, or after the Israelites’ faith motivated them to march around the city for seven days as God had instructed? “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son” (Heb.11:17). “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:17-26). I would much rather go into eternity with a working faith, rather than a dead faith! When was the, scripture fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God? Was it before, or after his faith motivated him to do what God told him to do? When will the sinner’s faith save him, before, or after his faith motivates him to obey the commandments of God? God has always, always, always required obedience from mankind, and only when man obeyed His commands was he said to be justified by faith! No one was ever said to be justified by faith when they did not do what God instructed them to do. When God instructs man to do a particular thing, obeying what God says is good works (Eph.2:10), which are done by faith.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn.2:3). “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn.14:15).

99. Was Paul Thankful that God sent Him to preach only one part of the Gospel? 1 Cor. 1:17.

No! Paul did not preach part of the gospel, i.e., Paul did not preach faith only, he preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). See also question # 7.

100. If Faith always includes and involves Baptism - as you preach it - why did the Holy Spirit use two different words - if they mean and include each other? Mark l6:16.

Because it is the reader’s duty to rightly divide the word of God (2 Tim.2:15), and consider the context of any given passage, for instance, in John 12:42,43 the rulers of the synagogue believed but weren’t saved because they did not have enough faith to confess Christ. Since Peter set the precedent on the day of Pentecost, that repentance and baptism was necessary for the remission of sins, then when he or others preached faith, such as in Acts 16:31, it included repentance, confession, and baptism in order to have the forgiveness of sins, to become a Christian. The Holy Spirit didn’t say, “He that believeth and believeth shall be saved” did He? Why? Because it takes more than faith. Saving faith, must be, and always is accompanied with repentance as well as baptism in order to have the remission of sins.

101. In Gal. 3:26, 27: "For Ye are ALL" (V. 26)

"For as many of you"- (V. 27). Do these two statements mean and include the same people? Had ALL the people in verse 26 become Children of God? Had ALL of them been baptized or AS MANY OF YOU aa had been baptized?

A. A. Davis, Nowata, Oklahoma

Again, since God's word is perfect (James 1:25), it is its’ own best interpreter and its’ own best commentary, so let's see if the Bible will reveal whether or not these two statements, “mean and include the same people.” First, the word “all” in the Greek is, “pas,” and the phrase “as many as” is, “hosos.” Now, let’s look at the usage of these two words in other verses. “Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as [hosos] ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all [pas] as many as [hosos] they found...” (Mt.22:9,10). Does “all” mean and include the same people as, “as many as?”

“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all [pas] that are afar off, even as many as [hosos] the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). Does “all” mean and include the same people as, “as many as?”

“Yea, and all [pas] the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as [hosos] have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days” (Acts.3:24). Does “all” mean and include the same people as, “as many as?”

“For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, [pas] as many as [hosos] obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [pas] even as many as [hosos] obeyed him, were dispersed” (Acts 5:36,37). Does “all” mean and include the same people as, “as many as?”

“For ye are all [pas] the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as [hosos] have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal.3:26,27). Isn’t it crystal clear from all of these verses that “as many as” have been baptized, in verse 27, means and includes the same people as “all” who were children of God by faith, in verse 26, especially since “hosos” is rendered as “all” in the following verses, notice:

“And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all [hosos] that they had done” (Lk.9:10).

“And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all [hosos] that the chief priests and elders had said unto them” (Acts 4:23).

“And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all [hosos] that God had done with them...” (Acts 14:27).

“And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all [hosos] things that God had done with them” (Acts 15:4).

“For all [hosos] the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (2 Cor.1:20).

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all [hosos] things that he saw” (Rev.1:2).

Can there be even one iota of doubt left to the fact that they were all the children of God by faith because they all had been baptized into Christ? In all cases of conversion, a saving faith always motivated the believing penitent to be baptized for the remission of sins. Please consider these thoughts carefully in light of what your Bible says. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to contact me at any time.