What Is Truth

Email conversation with a member of the Christian Church

2010-02-15T17:31:00.004-05:00

My responses will be in black and Barrie's responses will be in red…

Dear Kevin - do you remeber making this quote: "Pitch pipes do not ADD to the Word of God, they are merely an AID to help us sing. It is impossible to sing without pitch; therefore, pitch is a necessary part of the command to sing.

Song Books do not ADD to the Word of God. They are used as merely an AID to help us sing.

The same thing can easily be demonstrated in the matter of: 1. Church buildings, 2. Pews, 3. Microphones, 4. ETC?ETC?ETC?

Nothing is done with them that is NOT within the scope of God's will concerning the worship service. They do NOT set up actions in worship separate and apart from that which God has ordained!!! In other words they do NOT ADD nor do they CHANGE the Word of God. Instrumental music on the other hand, is NOT an aid to help us sing, it is an ADDITION to the word of God."

How incredibly illogical can that be? ... To make a distiction between pitch pipes [etc] as only AIDING, but instruments ADDING to worship is an incredible inconsistency.

For the record, I grew up in fellowships similar to yours - fellowships that taught [incorrectly] on the music issue. In fact I am a minister in one of them even now, but find it impossible to defend a stand against using instruments as being sinful.

Blessings.

Barrie

Barrie,

You wrote, "How incredibly illogical can that be? ... To make a distiction between pitch pipes [etc] as only AIDING, but instruments ADDING to worship is an incredible inconsistency."

My reply: No, not "illogical" but the truth. Please explain how using a pitch pipe to aid in getting the right pitch for leading a song and how using an instrument is a "terrible inconsistency"???

You wrote, " For the record, I grew up in fellowships similar to yours - fellowships that taught [incorrectly] on the music issue. In fact I am a minister in one of them even now, but find it impossible to defend a stand against using instruments as being sinful."

My reply: It doesn't surprise me that you did not offer any Scriptural rebuttal to what I wrote because none exists. The truth of the matter is God has told us specifically how He wants us to worship Him and that is through singing, not playing an instrument.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin Walker

Kevin ...

Sorry I came across as hard-nosed. That was not my intention if it seemed so - I was in a hurry and just sent off a quick note. Thanks for responding to my email.

As for a Scriptural rebuttal, I would argue that there is indeed a number that you might consider and respond to [if you are so inclined: I am aware I just "barged" into your privacy as it were].

If you like, I would be glad to respond with what I believe is Biblical evidence that Paul, along with thousands of N.T. believers, worshipped with instruments.

From one who loves the truth in Jesus,

Barrie Forman

Barrie,

I would like to see your scriptural support for the instrumental music issue. If you can prove that instrumental music is truly authorized from scripture then I will change my position. Are you willing to do the same?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin Walker

Two quick "evidences" for your consideration:

Acts 2:46; 18:18-21

Blessings ... More to follow about these passages.

Barrie

Barrie,

I will be waiting for more evidence for these two passages you quoted Acts 2:46; 18:18-21 have nothing to do with instrumental music.

Kevin

Kevin ...

Just having guests over so this is a quick response.

As to the scriptural support, I will have to send that soon.

Regarding switching positions, I AM willing to do the same - provided that you can show me scripturally where we are authorized for a number of practices we [and I would assume you too] include in our assemblies today for which we find no biblical support [viz., command]. It is intersting how we tailor the "command, example & necessary inference" principal without being consistent [there is that word again :-)] with it.

So it all depends on how you use the word AUTHORITY.

We must be careful when we use 'swords' as they by their very nature cut both ways.

In Him,

Barrie

Kevin ...

Try to stay on track here.

I mention authority because YOU wrote: If you can prove that instrumental music is truly authorized from scripture then I will change my position ...

My assumption is that you are applying the principal of Command, Example, or, Necessary Inference as it relates to the topic of intsruments [am I wrong here]. And since that is your approach, I said to you in my email that I would be willing to change my view if you can prove to me - that you apply consistency to all matters as relates to worship - namely, where is your [anyones] authority for: songbooks, microphones, buildings, Sunday school classes, multiple cups, etc etc etc.

We do not seem to hold to the C E or, N I principal consistently now do we. Why are you [others] so willing to include these things in our worship, but exclude instruments? Why do you [others] not see the glaring inconsistency here?

As fars as the two verses I sent you having nothing to do with instruments, - I suggest that this where you [other legalists] miss the point. They have EVERYTHING to do with the issue of music.

Temple worship clearly and undisputably included instumental worship --- and the new Christians met there DAILY! Think about the implications of that for a moment. Paul, in keeping the Nazarite vow, and in keeping the feast at the temple, willingly/knowingly and permissibly invovled himself in the environment of intsrumental WORSHIP (for that is exprsssly what he was doing) ... All of this he does, as a full-fledged Christian.

Please prayerfully consider and respond to my letter as you have time.

In His Grace,

Barrie

Barrie,

You wrote, "Kevin ...Try to stay on track here. I mention authority because YOU wrote: If you can prove that instrumental music is truly authorized from scripture then I will change my position ..."

Okay, do you want to talk about authority or do you want to talk about instrumental music?

You wrote, "My assumption is that you are applying the principal of Command, Example, or, Necessary Inference as it relates to the topic of intsruments [am I wrong here]."

Yes you are correct.

You wrote, "And since that is your approach, I said to you in my email that I would be willing to change my view if you can prove to me - that you apply consistency to all matters as relates to worship - namely, where is your [anyones] authority for: songbooks, microphones, buildings, Sunday school classes, multiple cups, etc etc etc."

First we can talk about instrumental music, then if you desire we can talk about authority.

You wrote, "We do not seem to hold to the C E or, N I principal consistently now do we."

That is your opinion, and we will get into that later if that is your desire.

You wrote, "Why are you [others] so willing to include these things in our worship, but exclude instruments?"

Let's decide which issue we will talk about first before I go into all of the details...

You wrote, "Why do you [others] not see the glaring inconsistency here?"

Again, this is merely your opinion, and if you want to talk about this issue I will be more than happy to explain it to you once we have discussed the instrumental music issue.

You wrote, "As fars as the two verses I sent you having nothing to do with instruments, - I suggest that this where you [other legalists] miss the point."

There you go, claiming that I (among others) am a "legalist". Again let me point out to you this is merely your opinion and I challenge you to prove that I am a legalist. Of course we can also get into this discussion after we talk about instrumental music and after we talk about what is authorized.

You wrote, "They have EVERYTHING to do with the issue of music. Temple worship clearly and undisputably included instumental worship --- and the new Christians met there DAILY!"

Are we under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant? Was Temple worship included under the New Coveant? If you say under the New Covenant, then where in the New Testament is Temple worship authorized?

You wrote, "Think about the implications of that for a moment. Paul, in keeping the Nazarite vow, and in keeping the feast at the temple, willingly/knowingly and permissibly invovled himself in the environment of intsrumental WORSHIP (for that is exprsssly what he was doing) ... All of this he does, as a full-fledged Christian."

Did God command Christians to WORSHIP God in the temple in the New Testament??? Scripture references please...What happened to temple worship in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed??? Was Paul sinning by not participating in this worship at Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed??? Why did the Jews say in Acts 6:14 that Jesus was going to destroy the temple and "change the customs" that Moses had delivered to them?

You conveniently forget the Christian Jews went into the temple to try and convert the Jews. (See Acts 5:20, Acts 5:25). Acts 5:42 states, "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ." Your qibble about Christians worshipping in the temple and participating in instrumental music is easily dismissed by these verses for the only reason the early Christians went into the temple was to preach the gospel of Christ.

If you will notice in the verse you quoted Acts 8:18-21 if you will look at verse 19, Paul explains why he went into the synagogue he "reasoned with the Jews". Again your own verse you quoted proves that Paul did not go there to engage in WORSHIP as you allege.

Now let's see the verses that you say proves that instrumental music can be used in WORSHIP to God. The verses you have quoted so far do no such thing.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin Walker

Kevin ...

On October 12 you wrote:

Barrie

I would like to see your scriptural support for the instrumental music issue. If you can prove that instrumental music is truly authorized from scripture then I will change my position. Are you willing to do the same?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin Walker

You seem hung up on my mentioning authority as relates to the instrument question, and seem to object to my associating the two. What truly puzzles me, is how you can ask me to show how instruments are AUTHORIZED from scripture, and then tell me that we need to address instruments and authority seprepately. This makes absolutely no sense in any way to me at all.

Which way do you want it?

What I want to talk about [since you asked] is how the issue of instruments is not a salvation matter - any more than one cup or multiple cups is a salvation matter. * I personally find it impossible to divorce the issues [authority & instruments] and present any type of logical response - since [I assume that] we both want to base our worship on God's will.

So, perhaps you can lay out the parameters by which you see discussing the issue of instruments: I will be most curious to see your response as to how you can divorce authority/instruments and still discuss God's will.

Barrie

Barrie,

You wrote, "You seem hung up on my mentioning authority as relates to the instrument question, and seem to object to my associating the two."

No, the problem is you want to talk about everything else, in addition to instrumental music for you said on October 12: "Regarding switching positions, I AM willing to do the same - provided that you can show me scripturally where we are authorized for a number of practices we [and I would assume you too] include in our assemblies today for which we find no biblical support [viz., command]."

I have told you that I am willing to talk about those subjects however, let's stick to one at a time.

You wrote, "What truly puzzles me, is how you can ask me to show how instruments are AUTHORIZED from scripture, and then tell me that we need to address instruments and authority seprepately. This makes absolutely no sense in any way to me at all. Which way do you want it?"

I have no problem talking about how instruments are AUTHORIZED from scripture. I have consistently told you we can talk about the other things, i.e. pitch pipes, song books etc. in a separate discussion.

You wrote, "What I want to talk about [since you asked] is how the issue of instruments is not a salvation matter - any more than one cup or multiple cups is a salvation matter. * I personally find it impossible to divorce the issues [authority &instruments] and present any type of logical response - since [I assume that] we both want to base our worship on God's will."

There you go again bringing something else up (multiple cups) instead of talking about whether or not the use of instrumental music is authorized. Please present your case for the use of instrumental music in worship and we will see if it is consistent with what God has revealed in His word.

You wrote, "So, perhaps you can lay out the parameters by which you see discussing the issue of instruments: I will be most curious to see your response as to how you can divorce authority/instruments and still discuss God's will."

Again, I have not said that anyone can "divorce authority/instruments" now have I Barrie??? If you want to discuss this issue, please begin with scripture that supports your view as the scriptures you have provided so far do not prove that we can use instruments in our worship to God.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin Walker

End of Conversation with Barrie…

Email response to an ex-member of the church of Christ

2010-02-13T15:44:00.082-05:00

This is an email response to an ex-member of the church of Christ.

My first responses were directed to the comments he posted on his website and then we were in an email discussion. All of my comments will be in black and Brian's responses will be in red...

Brian,

My name is Kevin and I am a member of the church of Christ…

I just happened to come across your website at: http://www.chocd.org/pages/6/index.htm and would like to discuss some of the things that you state concerning the church of Christ…

Let me say right off the bat, if you can prove through the Scriptures that my beliefs are wrong, I will change my beliefs…

Are you willing to do the same???

You say: "What do the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and the Church of Christ denomination all have in common? They each claim to have THE Way; THE Truth; and THE Life, and that no one gets to heaven without being a part of their organization! Certainly they can't all be right since their individual doctrinal beliefs are diametrically opposed to one another."

You are right, we cannot all be teaching the truth… There is only one body… Not many… (See 1 Corinthians 12:20). How can one know the truth??? The apostle John wrote in 1 John 4:1-2, "4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

You say, "On this web site we will endeavor to examine the claim of the Church of Christ to be God's sole representative on the earth today, and answer the question, "Is the Church of Christ Denomination A Cult? You will notice that most scriptural quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, which is considered by most scholars to be the most literal word for word translation extant today."

Let us reason together to find out whether what you state is true according to the word of God… All of my scripture quotations will be taken from the New King James version…

You say, "Who is the Church of Christ??? Most (not all) congregations of the Church of Christ denomination (CHOCD) claim that they can trace their roots back to the original New Testament church, in the same way that the Catholic Church claims that they can trace the papacy back to the Apostle Peter. Both claims are equally spurious."

The church of Christ that I attend does not make the claim that we can "trace our roots back to the original New Testament church" for this is not necessary nor is it required in order to be the Lord's Church… The Catholic Church makes this claim and I can assure you it is false… One does not need to be able to trace church history to prove they are the true church…

You say, "The reality is: in 1906 the CHOCD broke away from the Christian Church which was established in the mid 1800s by Alexander Campbell during the so-called Restoration Movement."

Yes, the church of Christ did split from the Christian Church in the early 1900's but I can assure you that the church of Christ was not "established" by Alexander Campbell… Since you were a former member of the church of Christ, you are well aware that calling those of us who are current members of the church of Christ a denomination when you say "CHOCD" does nothing but inflame readers… I find it interesting that you resort to this tactic right off the bat without even proving your contention…

You say, "But right off the bat, this is where we get into one of their greatest controversies. They claim that they are not a denomination, but rather they are the TRUE Body of Christ!"

I can assure you the church of Christ where I worship God is "not" a denomination…

You say, "To justify this outlandish claim, they rest very heavily on the notion that they have the only biblically correct name of any church. They look down on other denominations for naming themselves after a man (Lutherans) or a doctrine (Baptists) or forms of church government (Presbyterian) and claim that the only scriptural name given to the church is the name that they bear. Since the word Christ simply means "messiah", that translates into The Church of the Messiah. But which Messiah? A better name would be The Church of Jesus Christ, which would also be a scriptural name."

Since Jesus created "His church" don't you think that we who are "Christians" who wear the name of Christ should glorify His name in the church??? Does the name, "church of Christ" glorify Jesus??? Yes or No??? If not, why not???

You say, "As would: "The Church of God" (I Cor. 1:2) "The Church of the Faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1) "The Church of the Saints in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:1) "The Church of the Holy and Faithful Brothers in Christ" (Col. 1:2) "The Church In God Our Father and the Lord Jesus" (II Thess 1:1) "The Church of God's Elect" (I Peter 1:1) "The Children of God" (I John 3:1) Etc...Etc...Etc..."

The name on the church building does not prove that one is the "true" church that Christ built…

You say, "So we see that the CHOCD does not have a corner on scriptural names for the body of Christ, which brings up our next dilemma, which division of the CHOCD are we talking about? For there are at least three different branches of the CHOC that have the exact same name, but believe different doctrines, and often each considers the other to be virtual heretics."

Like I said earlier, the name on the church building does not prove that one is the "true" church that Christ built…

You say, "One of the dilemmas in dealing with this topic is that each CHOCD congregation is autonomous (independent)."

God in His infinite wisdom made each congregation "independent" because He knew as Paul stated in Acts 20:29, "…that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." This is how we ended up with the Catholic Church…

You say, "Even though there does seem to be some light at the end of the tunnel, most CHOCD still adhere to the same doctrines that they have taught for the last 100 years."

Doctrine does matter for God says in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

You say, "One shining exception is Max Lucado. Max is a prolific author and rarely gets into the divisive teaching of the CHOCD, even though he is a CHOCD pastor/preacher."

I can assure you that Max Lucado has not been a church of Christ preacher for some time…

You say, "With this in mind, let's look at the three predominant CHOCD groups. The first group, most commonly known as the "One Cup Brethren" has no musical instruments in their worship service and one single shared cup for communion. The second group known as the "Cups Brethren" has no musical instruments but has multiple cups for their communion service. Then the third group known as the "Instrumental Brethren" has multiple cups and musical instruments. The "One Cup" branch commonly refers to the "Cups Brethren" as the "Digressive CHOC" and calls the "Musical Instrument Brethren" the "Liberal CHOC". Then lastly (as if this wasn't confusing enough) we have a branch of the CHOCD that has actually changed it's name to the International CHOC. The other three branches have branded this group (sociologically and theologically) to be a full blown cult!"

I believe that it is the contents of the "fruit of the vine" used in the Lord's Supper that matters, not the cup itself… Personally, I wouldn't drink of one cup after everyone else had done so, would you??? 2 John 9 applies… The old "anti" issues of: cooperation, one cup, no Sunday school, no church kitchen, etc. are all sinful because they bind where the Scriptures do not bind…

What did God say about erring brethren??? "Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20). Revelation 2:5 applies.

You say, "But this leads us to our first major point, is the CHOCD a denomination? The CHOCD is much more prevalent in the southern portion of the Bible Belt, and down south if you call them a denomination...well, let's just say "Them's fightin' words!" This is one of their foundational tenets. You might be asking yourself, "What's the big deal? Who cares if they think they are a denomination or not?" The answer is that it's not a big deal, unless you know the logic behind why they make the claim. It is simply this: if they accept being called a denomination, then that would relegate them to a position within the Body of Christ. But their claim is that they are not just a part of the Body of Christ, but that they are THE BODY OF CHRIST!"

Yes, the church of Christ "is" the body of Christ… You have yet to prove anything that would disprove this fact… Which denomination who claims to be a part of the "body of Christ" did Jesus build or authorize for that matter??? Were there any denominations around in the first century??? Disciples of Jesus wear no denomination names or support denominational doctrines… Once someone obeys the gospel, they are not Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc… No such names or denominations existed when Jesus built His church… (See Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47). The name "Christian" is given for us to wear, and we glorify God in that name… (See Acts 11:26, 4:12; 1 Peter 4:14-15).

You say, "The sad thing is to hear what great lengths they will go to in order to shun the label of "denomination." They will actually redefine the term in such a way as to cause the unaware to agree with them. As an ex- member, I have heard so many definitions for the word "denomination" over the years that it's hard for me to remember them all. The most common one they use is that a denomination is "a group or thing that has come out from an original group or thing." Now that fits their theology just fine, thank you, because it allows them to say that all denominations are "groups that came out from the original group" which, you guessed it, the original group is them... the Church of Christ! This also allows them to claim that you are not a true Christian and you are not going to heaven, because you don't belong to the one and only, true Body of Christ. Convenient, but ignorant."

No, not "ignorant" but the truth… The Lord speaks of two ways to travel in Matthew 7:13, 14. "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." How could this statement of the Lord Jesus Christ be true if all people in denominations are going to heaven?

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). The truth of Jesus is that there is a broad way that leads to destruction and many are going down that road in spite of the fact that he shed his blood to save all men. The point is the people who refuse Jesus and walk in the ways of the devil are headed to destruction. This is the majority of the people of this world and we need to be doing all we can to change them because the way they are living they are lost.

The judgment day scene of Matthew 25:31-46 pictures two groups standing before the Lord Jesus Christ. "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). Here the reason given was not having a benevolent spirit of helping those in need. Too many people have a spirit of helping themselves only and have no care for those less fortunate than they. This can cause people to spend eternity in everlasting fire. The point is all people are not going to heaven because Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world.

In the judgment scene of Revelation 20:11-15 this statement is made, "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:15) In Revelation 21 a beautiful description of the city of heaven is given and the Lord said, "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." (Rev. 21:27). We need our names in the book of life to go to heaven. Who are written there? "to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven" (Heb. 12:23). We must be in the Lord's church to be written in heaven. The saved are added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47). "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mk. 16:16)

You say, "A denomination is simply a certain type of the same thing, such as a denomination of money. Let's say I had $50 in my pocket. And we'll say that it was a $20 bill, two tens, and two fives. Each of those denominations is a form of paper money. They are different denominations and are of different values but they are each considered to be of the same currency. But according to the CHOCD, some of the bills are real money but others are not, because a denomination is a "group or thing that has come out from an original group or thing." Their obvious flaw in this scenario is called "circular logic." Why are they not a denomination? Because "they are the true body of Christ!" And why are they the true body of Christ? Because "they are not a denomination!" The word "denomination" comes from the Latin word "nomin", which means "name" and the prefix "de" means "of." So, "de nomin" simply means "of the same name." And in the case of the church, it would be of the same name... Jesus! Paul addresses the issue of denominations in I Corinthians 11:18-19. He says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. The Greek word used in this verse for "division" is schism, which simply means a division. The Greek word used here for "factions" is hairesis, which means dis-unity. So on the surface it seems as though Paul is condemning these divisions… or is he? In reality, under closer scrutiny, he is actually endorsing these divisions or denominations. Why? Because he says in verse 19 that the divisions allow our congregations to be separated into groups that can be identified as "approved" or "not approved."

Wow… Paul condemned "divisions" and yet you say that he is "actually endorsing these divisions or denominations"???

Paul stated earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:10, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Please explain how Paul can "endorse these divisions or denominations" and yet say just the opposite stating "that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you"??? The cause of "divisions" among the churches in the first century was as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:3, "for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?"

Paul also wrote in Romans 16:17, "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."

I can assure you the apostle Paul did not "endorse these divisions or denominations" as you have asserted…

You are correct about the root meaning of the word denomination. It does come from the Latin nomen = name. From it we get nominate (to propose someone by name as a candidate), misnomer (an incorrect name for something), and even noun (the name of a person, place, or thing). The corresponding Latin verb denominare = to name… Religiously, a denomination is an organized group of congregations that can be named or classified together because they have formed a collective entity. In English, to "denominate" means to designate, or give a name to, and a denomination is a naming or classification of something. A denomination is not merely a number of congregations that resemble one another, or seem to belong together. A denomination is an intentionally organized group of congregations that is, a group of congregations that participate in some organization through which they can act as a unit for some purposes. They are "named" together (designated or "denominated" as one) because they participate in the common organization, and are able to function as one through their organization.

In the New Testament, church means a single congregation of Christians, and churches means two or more completely independent congregations, which are essentially identical in faith and practice. (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; Gal. 1:2; Rev. 1:4). Scriptural independence and autonomy are violated any time a person, persons, congregation, or organization assumes decision making oversight over a work that a plurality of congregations is involved in. A dependency is always set up. Typically the overseeing entity is dependent for funds, and the contributors are dependent for oversight. This is true even when the linkage involves only a specific purpose or single project - e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention. And voluntarily giving up scriptural autonomy only worsens the matter. As the gospel of Christ is proclaimed in its purity, without the addition of creeds (Gal. 1:6-9), its simple message (1 Cor. 1:19-2:13) becomes the "power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). Within the gospel is a divine power that is called "the seed" (Luke 8:1-15) by which spiritual life is generated in every age, wherever the gospel is proclaimed. Jesus is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23), and it is His right to determine who is saved and who is in His fellowship. The power of the gospel, the seed (Luke 8:11) generates life wherever it is sown. Disciples are made when they obey the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20) and the Lord adds them to His church (Acts 2:47). As individual saints are born by the word, they meet with others saints in a locality in order to work and worship as New Testament Christians did. In this fashion, wherever the gospel is preached, churches of Christ will appear.

There is only one church (Ephesians 4:4). Romans 16:16 mentions "churches" (plural) "of Christ", these were not denominations, but were all part of the one unified body ruled by Jesus from heaven. Every LOCAL church taught the same thing – the Apostles doctrine – (1 Corinthians 4:17, Acts 2:42). When these local churches had men qualified, they would appoint elders to oversee each local church (Acts 14:23). There were no creed books because the inspired word of God is sufficient to unite all men in one body (2 Timothy 3:16-17). A local church of Christ is simply a congregation that belongs to Christ. Each congregation is independent from every other congregation, claiming its autonomy under Christ (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). It recognizes no earthly head, belongs to no association of churches and stands free from denominational churches.

You say, "If I go into a new city and I want to go to a Church of Christ, I simply look in the Yellow Pages under "Churches of Christ." If I want to go to an Assembly of God, I do the same. This way I don't unknowingly go to a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). I'm sure that the Lord would prefer perfect doctrinal unity in all his congregations, but He knows that won't happen this side of Heaven. Even the CHOCDs can't decide on multiple cups, musical instruments or multiple loaves for communion. So basically were are back to square one, it doesn't matter so much what you call your church (Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ, etc.), but more importantly, what you teach. Paul also addresses this issue in I Corinthians 12:12-31, 12"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14For the body is not one member, but many.15If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.16And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.19If they were all one member, where would the body be?20But now there are many members, but one body. 21And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.27Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way. So we see that God says that there is one BODY of Christ (one Church) but is has many members or parts. Those parts all have their own individual callings and functions. Unfortunately, the CHOCD says to all other members of the body: "I have no need of you...you are not a part of the body!""

Paul was speaking of "individual members" of the body of each church, not "denominations" as you assert… God said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." Those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ do NOT have God.

We are commanded to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15).

Let's put this to the test, denominations teach that in order to be saved, one can "Pray for Salvation" and this is not in accordance with the word of God since nowhere is anyone commanded to do this in order to be saved, hence this is false doctrine. Since this is the case, those who are in denominations "do not have God"…

John had this to say about these people, John 8:47 says, "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

John 9:31 also says, "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him." There is NO such thing as hyphenated Christian. The word of God knows nothing of a Catholic-Christian, Methodist-Christian, Baptist-Christian or Pentecostal-Christian etc…

The wishes of God are expressed when Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:10, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Here is the final answer: Paul told Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you."

Here is God's promise to the faithful: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." (Rev 3:21).

Here is God's promise to the unfaithful: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6).

Religious unity is possible only when we all use the same standard, that is, the Word of God. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains less than the Bible, it contains too little. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains more than the Bible, it contains too much. When a man's creed (or catechism) contains only the Bible, it is not necessary, for the Bible alone is sufficient to meet man's needs. (See 2 Tim. 3:16-17)…

Is God the author of confusion??? (1 Corinthians 14:33). There is only 1 faith, not many as proclaimed in the different denominational churches. (Ephesians 4:5). Consider the various doctrines taught by the many religious groups that exist today. Many teach it is not possible for a person to fall from grace and lose his salvation. But the Bible teaches it is possible for a person to fall from grace and lose their salvation (Hebrews 3:12-14; 10:26-28; 1 Corinthians 9:23-27; Galatians 5:4; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 3:17). How can all of these conflicting doctrines be taught? God is not the author of confusion!!! By what authority are these different churches teaching conflicting doctrines? The only correct standard of authority is God's word, the Bible. The Bible, being inspired by God, completely furnishes us unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Because God's word is our only authority in matters of religion, it must not be added to, subtracted from, or altered in any way. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19). Because God's word is our only authority in matters of religion, we will all one day be judged by the word. (John 12:48, Rev 20:11-12).

You say, "This site is not meant to tear down the CHOCD, just to point out its errors."

You have yet to point out any "errors" at all…

You wrote, "Baptismal regeneration is simply a 50 cent term used to describe the belief that you are born again and receive your salvation at the moment of water baptism. There are certain verses that they use, out of context, that they feel substantiate their belief. But if you examine each of their verses in context, you will see that the verses clearly do not substantiate their claims. Not to mention the myriad of verses to which they must turn a blind eye, in order to continue believing their works oriented doctrine."
The use of the expression "baptismal regeneration" betrays the fundamental misunderstanding of my view of Scripture. No one is suggesting that the water has any merit or that submission to baptism somehow causes the individual to earn his salvation. Water is merely the substance that God designated to be the dividing line between the lost and saved.

God frequently operated in just such a fashion throughout Bible history. For example, Naaman had to be immersed seven times before his leprosy was cleansed (2 Kings 5:14). According to your logic, he was healed by "river regeneration"!

The blind man was required by Jesus to have mud placed on his eyes and then to go to the pool of Siloam and wash it off to regain his eyesight (John 9:6-7). Again, your doctrine of "faith only" requires them to call his healing "pool regeneration"!

Here is the heart of error of Calvinism and "faith only." It insists that if humans have to do anything, then salvation is not by grace.

But that conclusion is simply FALSE!

Neither Naaman nor the blind man felt their compliance with divinely stipulated acts constituted working for their salvation or in some way meriting the subsequent blessing. They understood that their healing was due totally to the grace and compassion of God. So it is with water baptism.

You say, "They use three main verses to try to establish their position: 1. Mark 16:16 2. Acts 2:38 3. I Peter 3:21 Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." You notice that this verse does not say, "and he who has not been baptized shall be condemned," which is exactly what the CHOCD would like for you to believe. Jesus is simply making a natural assumption that all believers will be baptized. I would concur with that assumption. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a believer should not get baptized, unless there is positively no water available, or in the case of a death bed conversion. In such cases the CHOCD shows absolutely no mercy. They will say that it was the individual's fault for waiting to the last minute. "Sorry, Bud, your prayers of repentance are falling on deaf ears 'cause you waited too long, there ain't no pool, river or baptistery for miles.""

Is baptism a command??? Yes or No??? If baptism is a command (and I can assure you that it is), then who is going to answer God and say that "there was no water available" or "I was on my death bed" or "I waited too long but I was going to eventually do it" or "there was no pool, river or baptistery for miles"… Do you really think that God will accept their excuses??? If one is already saved prior to being baptized, then why does one need to be baptized at all??? If faith ONLY is what saves, then there should be no need to be baptized according to your doctrine. Jesus commanded his disciples first to make disciples of all nations, then He explains how this is done by "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

You wrote, "Tell that to the thief on the cross! He didn't have the opportunity to be water baptized and yet because he cried out to Jesus for mercy, Jesus promised him that he would be in Paradise that very day with Him! Now the standard answer that the CHOCD member will pop out of his or her preprogrammed gray matter is that you can't use the thief on the cross as an example because Jesus made that promise to the thief while they were both still under the Old Covenant (which as we all know wasn't fulfilled until Jesus died). But you see, the key issue is not when Jesus made the promise to the thief. The key issue is, under which covenant did the thief die? We know for a fact that the thief died under the New Covenant. How do we know? Because the gospels tell us that when the soldiers came to break the three crucified victim's legs, they marveled that Jesus was already dead. They didn't marvel at the two thieves, because they were still alive. So if the New Covenant was ushered in at the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, then anyone who died from that point on, died under the New Covenant. And that would include the thief on the cross!"

Actually when Jesus made the statement to the thief, he was still under the "Old Covenant" because Jesus was still alive so your conclusion is false…

You say, "Next we take a look at Acts 2:38 in which the apostle Peter says to the remorseful crowd, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." Now here is a verse they feel is stating that your sins are remitted at baptism. As we all know, if your sins are not forgiven, then you are not saved. But the question that needs to be asked here is: "Is it the baptism or the repentance that brings about the forgiveness?" Now we could get into the structuring of the sentence and try to argue our point from that perspective (the word "for" can be translated "because"), but usually a member of the CHOCD is not willing to accept that form of reasoning, so we go with a much more powerful position. If the forgiveness was brought through the baptism rather than the repentance, how do you explain the presentation that Peter gives in his very next sermon in Acts 3:19? He is speaking to a very similar group and says almost the same thing, but when he gives the plan of salvation, the topic of baptism is left out altogether! He said, "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away." So we see from this second sermon, that it wasn't the baptism that brought the forgiveness, it was the repentance. Then in Acts 10:43 Peter once again states, "To Him all the Prophets witness that, through His Name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sin." Most people reading these Scriptures see the pattern that is developing... it is faith in Jesus that wipes away our sin!"

If it is "faith in Jesus that wipes away our sin" then please explain why Peter did not state that the Jews in Acts 2:38 needed to have "faith in Jesus" to wipe away their sin??? It is not "faith alone in Jesus that wipes away our sin"… That is what you want people to believe… I can assure you the New Testament does not teach this nonsense…

You say, "Unfortunately, at this stage of the discussion some CHOCD members will take their pet doctrine of baptism from the extreme to the absurd. They actually will void the efficacy of someone's baptism, if the person didn't realize that their sins were remitted, at the moment of their baptism! I once asked a CHOCD preacher if he thought Billy Graham was saved, and his reply was, "Absolutely not!" When pressed for a reason for his conclusion he said, "Even though Billy Graham has been baptized, he doesn't preach baptism for the remission of sin, so he is not only not a true Christian, but he is also a false teacher!" So much for common sense."

The Gospel = Jesus Death, Burial, and Resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Baptism has three things in common with the gospel, a Death, a Burial and a Resurrection. Jesus blood was shed in his death (John 19:31-34) and baptism puts one into His death. (Romans 6:3-4). It is in Baptism that one obeys the gospel. God's vengeance will be on those who do not obey the gospel. (2 Thessalonians 1:8). It is from Baptism that one is resurrected to a new life. (Romans 6:4). One is not a child of God until they have obeyed the gospel. I can assure you that Billy Graham is not a Christian for he has not obeyed the gospel nor does he preach one must obey the gospel in order to be saved…

You say, "Now we turn to I Peter 3:20-21, which states, "...in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." First of all, we have to examine the comparison that Peter makes of the flood in Noah's day, to water baptism. Did the water save Noah? No, it almost drowned him. So what did the water do for Noah? It separated him from the world, just like water baptism is our declaration that we are separating ourselves from the world. We are dying to ourselves to live in Christ. This verse goes on to say that the water baptism doesn't actually wash our filthy sins from our flesh, but it renders a good conscience toward God because we were obedient to follow His command to be baptized."

Does this verse say that baptism saves? Yes or No.

"Antitype" in this verse means something that is foreshadowed by a "type or figure." So baptism is not the "figure or the type," it is the thing being illustrated - the "antitype."

The flood is the "type," baptism is the "antitype." They share in common - water. Those not obedient (and thus without faith) were drowned. (1 Peter 3:20). God's grace effectively used the obedient faith of Noah to bring him safely through the flood.

You say, "Jesus was baptized, and I guarantee you it wasn't for the remission of sin... for He was the perfect, sinless Lamb of God!"

Jesus had NO sin, and He did NOT have to be baptized by John the Baptist to be saved because He had NO sin. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in order to FULFILL all righteousness. In other words, Jesus was baptized because God the father COMMANDED baptism IN water. (See Psalm 119:172). Jesus gave us an example that we are to follow if we are to be His disciples for it is written in John 10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."

You say, "Here again we must reiterate that no true believer should continue in an unbaptized state. Whereas we can see that God expects us to obey Him in this sacrament, nowhere do we see Him judge those without mercy, who have accepted His Son as their Savior. Bottom line? If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior...get baptized. It's the right thing to do! The CHOCD somehow seems to think that they are the only ones who baptize their members. I have never attended a Church that didn't baptize their members. It is a command that we simply should not, can not, and will not ignore. But we also cannot point to it (baptism) and say, "That is what saved me." If you are going to point... point to the Cross."

The truth of the matter is, faith is demonstrated by works. The verb form of the word "faith" is believe. This is shown in Hebrews 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

The Philippian jailer said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" The voice of inspiration replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31) Here he said, "What must I do?" The apostle told him what he must do. Can you now doubt that to believe or to manifest faith includes an act? It is something that one must do.

Let me ask you Brian, Have you ever believed? What did you do when you believed? What act expressed your faith? How did you know when you completed your act or when you believed enough to be saved?

Go back and read the rest of Paul's instruction to the jailer. See what he did in verses 32 and 33. In verse 31 he was told to believe and he would be saved. In verse 34 we are told that he had believed and that he was saved. Then if we can see what he did between these two verses, we will know what one does when one believes.

If you need further proof that the words "believe" and "obey" are used interchangeably, please read Romans 10:16, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"

Now to see that disbelief and disobedience mean the same, let us read Hebrews 3:18-19, "And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief."

After we have seen that the word "believe" includes obedience, then we will not be at all troubled when we come upon such statements as "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth…" (1 Peter 1:22). Or that you were made free from sin by obedience to the form of doctrine (Romans 6:17-18). Or that we must obey the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) and that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. (Hebrews 5:9).

You say, "In Colossians 2:11, the Apostle Paul correlates baptism in the New Testament with circumcision in the Old Testament. He says, "... in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ having been buried with Him in baptism in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." Let's take a close look at this verse, to see what it says and what the ramifications are. First of all, we see that Paul says that the "circumcision of Christ" is a removal of the flesh that is symbolized in baptism. In the Old Testament, the Jews would circumcise their boys as a part of fulfilling their covenant with God. It was a literal cutting away of the flesh. Baptism was a symbol of dying to the flesh, and rising to new life in Christ. You notice that Paul says "by the circumcision of Christ having been buried with Him in baptism." Paul is saying that baptism is the circumcision of Christ, "through faith." Now why would this distinction be important to understand? Because in Romans 4:10 Paul states emphatically that Abraham was considered righteous by faith, BEFORE he was circumcised! He then goes on to say in verse 11, "...and he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had before he was circumcised ..." In other words, Abraham was counted as righteous before he was circumcised, and the circumcision was simply a "seal", or an outward sign, of the righteousness that he already had! Which is exactly the case with the "circumcision of Christ" (water baptism). It is an outward sign, or seal, of the righteousness you already possess through faith in Christ Jesus."

The apostle Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:19, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

Where it not for the creeds written by man, people would not have had a problem understanding what the Bible teaches about baptism. The plain truth is that Jesus has placed baptism as a part of His plan of salvation. The Great Commission contains it (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15,16); the book of Acts demonstrates it (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 38; 16:33; 18:8; 22:16); the epistles teach it (Romans 6:3-6; Galatians 3:26,27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13) and it is up to us to obey or else be destroyed (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).

You say, "The point that the CHOCD seems to miss is that baptism is SYMBOLIC. They readily chastise the Catholic Church for believing in transubstantiation, yet when it comes to baptism, the CHOCD makes the same mistake as the Catholic church: taking something literally that was supposed to be symbolic. The Catholic church says that the bread and wine (during Communion) literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. The CHOCD says that baptism actually remits your sins. They say that according to the book of Romans that you are literally buried with Christ through baptism. Noooo… baptism SYMBOLIZES Christ's death. It SYMBOLIZES your death, burial and resurrection. You don't come out of the water with dirt in your mouth, do you? Now, we realize that it can sometimes be hard to discern when something is to be taken literally as opposed to being a type or symbol. When it comes to baptism, though, there are simply too many Scriptures that give the plan of salvation...and leave the subject of baptism out altogether."

If baptism is "symbolic" as you state, then please explain why Ananaias told Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins???

Baptism is not a symbol, but is where God chose to place the cleansing blood of Christ. Jesus shed His blood in His death. (John 19:33-34). We contact the blood of Jesus when we are baptized into His death in the watery grave of baptism. (See Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27).

How does one contact the blood of Jesus if they are saved by faith alone???

You who teach that one is saved before and without baptism wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction.

You ADD the word [NOT] to 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16. For example, some falsely teach that :

Those who believe and are [NOT] baptized shall be saved;

Baptism is [NOT] for the remission of sins;

Baptism does [NOT] wash away sin;

Baptism does [NOT] save us.

By adding the word [NOT] you who do so, follow the footsteps of the Devil. God said if Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, they would surely die (Gen 2:17). The Devil added one word, the word [NOT]. He said they would [NOT] surely die (Gen 3:4). Adam and Eve sinned and were separated from God because of the addition of this one word.

If today you listen to and accept this one word [NOT] as a part of these passages, you too will sin and be separated from God!!! Anyone who accept this false teaching directly contradicts the words of our Lord, the very words by which you will one day be judged (John 12:48).

You say, "If baptism was the actual point at which God washes away our sin and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ, why do so many members of the CHOCD fall away from the Lord?"

Because it is written in 1 Peter 5:8, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

The devil is very good at what he does…

You say, There is an atheist organization in Illinois called Skeptics Inc. whose entire board of directors are almost all EX- CHOCD preachers! Why? Legalism kills! As with all issues of faith, the letter of the Law brings death, but the Spirit brings life! (II Corinthians 3:6)"

What letter of the Law is it Paul is stating in this passage that "brings death"??? Please elaborate…

You say, "The CHOCD claims that they "have no creed but the Bible," but in reality many in the CHOCD have a book that they use as a "guideline" for church doctrine."

I can assure you that we do not use this "book" as any type of "guideline" for church doctrine…

You say, "It is called, "Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ," by Leroy Brownlow. Chapter 14 is entitled, "Because It Gives Scriptural Answers To the Question- What Must I Do To Be Saved." This chapter would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad to see to what extent the CHOCD will go to promote their position on baptism. In this chapter Brother Brownlow dissects the question, "What must I do to be saved?" He examines the question word by word. When he gets to the word "do", he says, "It is not what I must get, think, feel or believe. The word "do" suggests activity on the part of the man being saved. Salvation is not a matter of passiveness, but of activity. God saves; still man saves himself by obeying the gospel, God's power to save (Rom. 1:16, Acts 2:40). Take the word "do" out of Christianity and you destroy it. You never read of an inspired man telling a sinner that there is nothing for him to do to be saved." Now I don't know about you, but I would consider the Apostle Paul to be an "inspired man", and oddly enough he is the only man recorded in scripture to have ever been asked this question verbatim, "What must I do to be saved?" It was asked of him by the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30. Keep in mind that Brother Brownlow's answer was "It is not what I believe" that saves me. Paul's answer, on the other hand, is just the opposite. When asked by the jailer, "What must I do to be saved?," the Apostle Paul answers, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved!" Mr. Brownlow's answer is a classic example of not being able to see the forest because of the trees!"

I answered this quibble earlier… Go back and read the rest of Paul's instruction to the jailer. See what he did in verses 32 and 33. In verse 31 he was told to believe and he would be saved. In verse 34 we are told that he had believed and that he was saved. Then if we can see what he did between these two verses, we will know what one does when one believes.

You say, "Paul says in Ephesians 2:8&9 that "We are saved by GRACE through FAITH and not of ourselves, it is a GIFT of God, NOT as a result of WORKS, that no one should boast." If you ever stand before Christ Jesus and He asks you why should He let you into Heaven... you had better say, "Because of what You did for me on the cross," not, "Because I was baptized"!"

What "WORKS" was Paul stating that did not save Brian??? Was it WORKS of "obedience" that do not save or is it WORKS of "merit" that do not save??? If Jesus asks why He should let you into Heaven, the only response is as written in Luke 17:10, "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "

You say, "Truth is always true. If you believe a certain doctrine, but through the study of God's Word, you find that your belief is not upheld scripturally (even if only once), then you need to seriously re-examine that belief. Regarding baptismal regeneration, a good case in point can be found in Acts 10:1-48. Here we find an example of a man named Cornelius, receiving the Holy Spirit, evidenced by " speaking in tongues and exalting God." And being amazed by the whole ordeal, the Apostle Peter (who had been preaching the gospel to the Cornelius household when the Holy Spirit fell upon all of them) stated in verse 47, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did..." Clearly we have in this example, a case where a person was obviously saved before he was water baptized."

Did Peter command Cornelius and his household to be baptized in Acts 10:48? Yes or No? Cornelius was not born again prior to being baptized for their baptism in the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with their salvation!!!

You say, "The Apostle Peter declares their salvation by saying that they had "received the Holy Spirit, just like we did!" The only way around this scenario is to deny that a person that is filled with the Holy Spirit (evidenced by speaking in tongues and glorifying God) is actually saved. And believe it or not, that is exactly what the CHOCD says! It never ceases to amaze me what some people are willing to swallow in order to protect what they feel is biblical, even if it denies the very Bible they seek to uphold."

First, Peter had to tell Cornelius "what you must do". (Acts 10:6).

Second, Peter would tell him "words by which you...shall be saved". (Acts 11:14).

Third, As Peter said, the Spirit fell upon them "as I began to speak". (Acts 11:15).

Fourth, Cornelius was saved AFTER he heard the "words". (i.e. the sermon) such as to Believe - Acts 10:43 AND be Baptized - Acts 10:48.

Until he heard the words and OBEYED what he was told, he WAS NOT SAVED!

The Spirit falling on them DID NOT SAVE them because it came before they heard the "words" and were told what to do.

If the doctrine of "faith only" is correct, Peter should have asked, "Can anyone give any reason why these Gentiles should not be allowed to believe (or accept Jesus as their Saviour)? Instead, Peter was pinpointing the EXACT MOMENT a person becomes a Christian!!! He was saying that God's direct authentication of Gentile eligibility through Holy Spirit baptism was sufficient proof that Gentiles should be allowed to become converts. The purpose was to show the Jewish brethren that,

1. God is NO respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34-35).

2. God was willing to grant them opportunity to Repent and have life. (Acts 11:18).

3. The Gentiles could be saved in the SAME WAY as the Jews...by Faith, Repentance, Confession AND Baptism. (Acts 15:9, 11; Acts 2:38 with Acts 10:48) which Faith comes THROUGH Hearing the Word of God. (Romans 10:17).

You say, "It is really the Apostle Paul that puts the icing on the cake on the issue of baptism, by stating in I Cor. 1:17, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel!" Now if baptism is the point of salvation, this statement would be utterly blasphemous. But in reality, it simply confirms what the rest of the Bible already teaches... that we are saved by grace, not works of any kind! As human beings, it is in our nature to want to earn our salvation. There is nothing wrong with wanting to please God! The problem comes in when the way we want to please God conflicts with the way He wants it."

Why did Paul say he did not come to baptize in 1 Corinthians 1:17??? Two reasons: (1) Because apostles were sent to disseminate the Christian message for the first time in human history. The response of the individual is up to that individual. Obviously, Paul wanted everyone to believe AND be baptized to be saved. But that was not his assigned mission - he was sent to preach. It's up to God to give the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6). (2) Paul states explicitly why he was glad he didn't baptize very many personally: "lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name" (vs. 15). In other words, baptism was so essential to a proper response to the gospel that he was glad that, since the Corinthians were lining up behind personalities, he had not baptized anymore than he did lest they give their allegiance to him rather than Christ.

You say, "If we look at Romans 10:9-10, we see God giving us the plan of salvation in a very simple and straightforward way. The Apostle Paul says that we are saved by confessing that Jesus is (our) Lord! Now that can't be true, can it? We don't get saved by simply believing and confessing that Jesus is Lord, do we? That is just too easy. There must be more to it than that, isn't there? Don't we have to do something to earn it? According to human wisdom, we have to deserve such a great gift. But in issues of life and salvation, sometimes we have to set aside our earthly "wisdom" and simply accept God at His Word. It's like the bumper sticker that says, "God said it; I believe it; and that settles it." Whether we understand God's Mercy and Grace or not, doesn't change His terms. He has made it simple so that anyone can be saved. But man comes along and tries to make it "better." But you cannot improve on perfection! God's ways are higher than our ways, and He says that salvation is a gift, that no one can earn. So my advice is to take God at his word and receive the greatest gift ever offered; Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ!"

If you look at Rom 10:16 the word of God states, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" One must obey the gospel in order to be saved… Merely "believing and confessing that Jesus is Lord" is not enough… Obedience to the gospel includes belief and confession and it also includes repentance and baptism… One cannot obey the gospel without doing all of these things… The bumper sticker you quoted does not make any sense because God said it and it is settled whether you believe it or not… Please tell me how someone is "earning salvation" by obeying the gospel???

You say, "In dealing with this topic, you need to keep in mind that not all CHOCDs agree on this subject. So before you begin to witness to them about musical instruments, you need to find out where they stand on the issue. It would be easy to see why a person might ask, "What's the big deal if they have musical instruments, anyway?" Well in reality, it is no big deal, to you or me, but it is to them."

We will see if you are able to prove that it is "no big deal" and if it is a "big deal" to God…

You say, "Such a big deal, in fact, that they say if you do have musical instruments in the worship service, then your worship is PAGAN!"

No, not "pagan" just unscriptural and without authority from God…

You say, "This is also another area where we get a glimpse of the schizophrenia that so often accompanies this type of legalism."

You have not proven that those who adhere to the doctrine of worship to God without instruments of music are guilty of "schizophrenia" much less that we are "legalists"…

I am not a "legalist"… God said in 1 Corinthians 6:2, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" This is EXACTLY what I am doing.

It is NOT wrong to judge, Jesus said in John 7:24, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Psalm 149:5-9 states, "Let the saints be joyful in glory; Let them sing aloud on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two-edged sword in their hand , To execute vengeance on the nations, And punishments on the peoples; To bind their kings with chains, And their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute on them the written judgment--This honor have all His saints. Praise the LORD!"

This "two-edged sword" is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:17). The word of God is what His saints use to judge the world.

You say, "Because many of the same people that say it is evil to use musical instruments in worship to God in the church service, will use musical instruments to worship God at home! It's because they see some sort of invisible, nonexistent dichotomy between the church service, and everyday life. It's as though you act one way in church, and another way at home."

Just because someone uses musical instruments at home does not mean that they are using them to worship God… I can assure you that everything that we do is "not" worship to God…

You say, "That might explain why in some CHOCDs, right after the worship service is over, and they've studied the Word, and taken communion, half the congregation heads for the back door to "have a smoke." This is especially true in the southern states."

I can assure you that no one in my congregation (and we are in one of the southern states) goes out the back door to "have a smoke"…

You say, "Their main reason for outlawing musical instruments in the church service is because they say that it is not mentioned in the Bible. You may remember their slogan is, "We speak where the Bible speaks; and we are silent where the Bible is silent.""

This is a true statement… Musical instruments are not listed as being used "in worship" in the New Testament…

You say, "Unfortunately for them, ignorance is not bliss… it's just plain folly. Unbeknownst to them, the Bible very clearly does give us permission to have musical instruments in our worship to God, whether it's in a corporate worship service or in the privacy of our own home, car or wherever the Spirit might lead."

We will see if what you say is true…

If it is a teaching of God, then you will have to be able to find somewhere in the New Testament where God has authorized it.

There is NOT a single passage in all the New Testament mentioning instruments of music in the worship of God, let alone commanding that we use it in worship.

Therefore, instruments of music in the public worship is a teaching of the doctrines and commandments of men. "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9).

You say, "Ephesians 5:19 says "... speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs..." and correspondingly Colossians 3:16 says to, "... admonish one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." So Paul makes it clear that we are to sing "psalms," but which psalms? Obviously he is referring to the Psalms of David! And many of the Psalms say to worship God with musical instruments, such as Psalm 150. Also, many of the Psalms were directed by David to be accompanied by a musical instrument, such as a harp or lyre. We also see that the worship of God in heaven will also include musical instruments as found in Revelation 15:2,"They held harps given them by God.""

In the Old Testament, God asked for singing + instrumental music for use in worship (2 Chronicles 29:25-26; Psalm 150). It was something they could be sure about.

In the New Testament, God just asks for singing (Ephesians 5:19) or the "fruit of lips" (Hebrews 13:15). Hence, singing was something that the worshiper could absolutely be sure about.

After the church came into being and for at least 400 or so years, God was given just what he asked for (singing). As a result, the word "a cappella" came into being and was the term for "music in the church style."

Before the New Testament was completed, the church used the Old Testament scriptures as their primary source (Acts 17:11; 18:28, etc.). They had the very scriptures before them that approved and encouraged the use of instruments right down to the naming of specific types (2 Chronicles 29:25-26; Psalm 150). And at the time of the early church, instruments were available and many Christians had the talent to play them ... yet this talent was not exercised in worship! The Old Testament scripture was not followed.

That instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching (John 14:26; Acts 2: 42) proves that the Apostles, who were very familiar with the use of instruments in Temple worship, never encouraged churches to use them.

The above also means that the Holy Spirit never encouraged churches to use instruments (John 14:26) in spite of the fact that it once did so in a direct way (2 Chronicles 29:25ff).

Ephesians 5:19 has two parts: Singing + Making Melody. The "making melody" is translated from the Greek word "psallo." It means to "pluck or twang." The phrase that follows tells where this action takes place. It is "in the heart" and not on a harp.

The design of the New Covenant worship will be different than that of the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; John 4:23; Hebrews 7:12; 9:1, 9:10, 10:1). Many physical things of the Old pointed to their true substance in the New. For example, in the Old it was the priests that offered physical sacrifices to God, but in the New everyone is a priest with spiritual sacrifices to offer (1 Peter 2:5).

It is specifically the "fruit of lips" that is the sacrifice of praise asked for (Hebrews 13:15) and not the sounds from man-made devices.

Most things in the book of Revelation are symbolic, NOT literal and there is NO evidence the harps in heaven are literal.

Should we take harps literally and put them in our worship service? I have yet to see a harp in any denominational worship service.

It is simply amazing that when people like you Brian want to justify instruments in the worship of the NT church, you go everywhere EXCEPT to the instructions given to the NT church!!!

You say, "But let's dig a little deeper into the actual definition of the word psalm. Most serious students of the Bible own a concordance. This is simply a reference book that lists all the key words and phrases in the Bible, in alphabetic order. The most commonly used concordance is called, "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible." It's approximately 1500 pages long. It also has a Hebrew and Greek dictionary in the back, where you can actually look up certain words in the Hebrew and Greek languages, which is what the Old and New Testaments were written in, respectively. If you were to take the time to look up the word "psalm" in the Greek dictionary, you would find this definition (#5568): "A set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp, or other instrument)." The root word of psalm is "psallo" which means to means to twitch, twang or pluck.. such as pluck a string of a musical instrument. We even see this term used in this same context to this day: in the southern states, the old timers "psalm" (pick or pluck) cotton. Obviously, from its text and its definition, a psalm was normally accompanied with a musical instrument."

In the Old Testament, Levites were called to worship in the temple with instruments of music (2 Chron. 5:11-13, Ps. 81:1-3, 98:4-6, 149:2-3).

In the New Testament, believers are called to worship in the Spirit with heart and lips (Heb. 13:15, Eph. 5:18-19, Col. 3:16).

Much of the argument in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 7, Galatians 3, Hebrews 7-10) is in order to show that Old Testament ceremonial worship is ABOLISHED.

There were many things in Old Testament ceremonial worship that were NOT a part of worship in the New Testament church.

In the Old Testament ceremonial worship, there were: Images (Exod. 25:18-19, 36:8), Priests (Exod. 40:13-15), Incense (Exod. 30:8), Candles (Exod. 25:31), etc. All of these were given, as the New Testament informs us, as "a FIGURE for the time then present" (Heb. 9:9 - emphasis mine). They were "imposed" (by divine commandment) "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). They were "patterns of things in the heavens" (Heb. 8:5), which things now belong to us because of the finished work and present intercession of Christ (Heb. 9:24, 12:18- 24).

You say, "Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of what happens when you establish your doctrines in haste! Can you find the words "musical instruments" in the New Testament? No. "Then let's keep them out of our worship!" But wait, Brother, doesn't the word "psalm" mean: "a song accompanied by a musical instrument?" Well, at this point they will choose their tradition over the Bible, because they don't want to be confused by the facts! And if you think that's bad, you should hear some of the straws (verses) they grasp at out of context, to buttress their erroneous conclusions. There are several examples we could cite that they wrongly claim substantiates their position against musical instruments in the worship of God, but for the sake of time, we will just look at the two most common. The first is what they call an "argument from silence." In reality it would better be described as a "straw man argument." What they say is that there were never any musical instruments used in the Temple worship, in the Old Testament. The reason that would be an issue to them is that they make a correlation between the Temple and the Church. Then you can point out that they are completely wrong in their assumption, by citing one of many scriptures, such as II Chronicles 5:12, which clearly shows musical instruments in the Temple. II Chronicles 5:11-14 took place at the dedication of the Temple: "The priests then withdrew from the Holy Place. All the priests who were there had consecrated themselves, regardless of their divisions. All the Levites who were musicians-Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and their sons and relatives-stood on the east side of the altar, dressed in fine linen and playing cymbals, harps and lyres. They were accompanied by 120 priests sounding trumpets. The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice, to give praise and thanks to the LORD . Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the LORD and sang: 'He is good; His love endures forever.' Then the temple of the LORD was filled with a cloud, and the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the temple of God." So we clearly see God sanction the use of musical instruments in worship by endorsing the proceedings by filling the Temple with His Glory."

In the Old Testament period, worship (except that which was performed by the priests and Levites at the temple in Jerusalem) was commonly offered without musical instruments. Worship in the ancient synagogue was always devoid of such. So was the worship of the early church. NEVER in the New Testament do we find mention of their (musical instruments) use. What we do find is an abundance of teaching to the effect that the whole system of tabernacle and temple worship (shadowy and typical in nature) has been ABOLISHED. It follows, therefore, that the use of musical instruments is NOT AUTHORIZED in the worship of the church today.

Did God command Christians to WORSHIP God in the temple in the New Testament???

Scripture references please...

What happened to temple worship in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed???

Was Paul sinning by not participating in this worship at Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed???

Why did the Jews say in Acts 6:14 that Jesus was going to destroy the temple and "change the customs" that Moses had delivered to them?

The Christian Jews went into the temple to try and convert the Jews. (See Acts 5:20, Acts 5:25).

Acts 5:42 states, "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ."

I can assure you that the early Christians did NOT worship in the temple NOR did they participate in using instrumental music for the only reason the early Christians went into the temple was to preach the gospel of Christ.

In Acts 8:19, Paul explains why he went into the synagogue he "reasoned with the Jews". This clearly proves that Paul did not go there to engage in WORSHIP.

You say, "The CHOCD will usually then come back with the moot argument that "There were no musical instruments in the Most Holy Place." Well, there were no accapella singers in the Most Holy Place, either! This is why we refer to this as a "straw man argument." It's totally without merit. It doesn't prove anything, let alone their point!"

I can assure you that I did not set up a "straw man argument"…

You say, "Next, they usually will cite Amos 6:5, which they claim proves that musical instruments are evil. Rather than quoting the entire chapter here, please read all of chapter six of Amos and I'm sure you will immediately see the flaws in their logic. We see in these verses that God (through the Prophet, Amos) is pronouncing woes upon those "who are at ease in Zion." And one of the sins that they were committing was that they were "inventing musical songs and instruments, just like David." First of all, if it was a sin to invent songs or instruments "like David," then it would have been a sin for David to do it, too! But this chapter also refers to them "eating beef" and "lying down on beds of ivory." Are these sins, also? NO! It is just a list of things that they were doing that revealed their apathetic hearts. It wasn't because these things were evil, in and of themselves, but because that's all they did. They were more concerned with the pleasures of their daily lives than they were with doing God's will."

I won't cite Amos 6:5…

You say, "The funny thing about the CHOCD on this (or any other) issue is their bizarre bi-polar view of the Old Testament. As soon as you quote something out of the Old Testament, they are on you like stink on a skunk, saying, "That's the OLD Testament and we are not under the OLD Testament!" But two minutes later they quote the Old Testament to back up their position."

I don't have a "bipolar view of the OT" as you assert… The OT is a reliable source for our LEARNING ONLY and NOT as our rule of faith and how we are to WORSHIP God today. Just because we are not under the OT as our rule of faith and how we are to worship God today does not mean that I "cannot quote the OT to back up my position"…

You say, "So we see yet another example of how the CHOCD is willing to bend and stretch the Scriptures to fit their mold. But alas, anyone with "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" can quickly detect counterfeit doctrine when faced with the authentic truth of God's Word."

God HAS SPECIFIED the kind of music He wants!!!

Matthew 26:30 - "And when they had SUNG a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

Acts 16:25 - "But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and SINGING hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them."

Romans 15:9 - "and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: 'For this reason I will confess to you among the Gentiles; And SING to Your name'."

1 Corinthians 14:15 - "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding; I will SING with the spirit, and I will also SING with the understanding."

Ephesians 5:19 - "Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, SINGING and making melody in your heart to the Lord,"

Colossians 3:16 - "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, SINGING with grace in your hearts to the Lord."

Hebrews 2:12 - "saying: 'I will declare your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will SING praise to You'."

Note that EVERY passage specifies SINGING.

By adding the instrument, men ADD to the word of God and violate His specific instruction.

We are now under the "New Covenant" (Heb. 8:7-12). God has made the first Covenant obsolete (Heb. 8:13).

Every example of music practiced by Christians was vocal. (Matthew 26:30, Acts 16:25, Romans 15:9, I Corinthians 14:15, Hebrews 2:12) Every command concerning Christians and music was a command to practice vocal music instead of instrumental music. (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16) The ONLY music commanded in the New Testament is vocal.

It is a specific command, therefore it excludes all other kinds of music.

No where in the New Testament does Christ, or an inspired man command the use of instruments of music. There is no command for its use in the church, there is no example of it being used by the church, there is no hint that it was used.

So much for your "authentic truth of God's word"…

You say, "The issue should be dealt with graciously through the words of our beloved Apostle Paul, as he attempts to deal with a similar issue in Chapter 14 of his letter to the Romans. I encourage you to stop and read the whole chapter right now. Paul simply states that on nonessential issues, such as eating meat or celebrating holidays, please don't be judgmental. If you want to eat meat or celebrate a holiday as unto the Lord, then fine. But please don't judge your brother who seeks to abstain."

I can assure you that Paul was not speaking of "acceptable or unacceptable worship" in Romans chapter 14…

You say, "And I'm sure Paul would say the same thing about musical instruments, especially when he already said they were permitted in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16! It is simply a personal preference. I have friends that attend churches that worship without instruments, and I say, "More power to you!" But the CHOCD says that if you include musical instruments in the worship of God, then your worship is Pagan (Godless)!"

I can assure you that you do not speak for the apostle Paul nor does he say "the same thing about musical instruments as you falsely allege…

Definition of the word psallo:

Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words: "In the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise"

Thayer: "In the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song."

NAS Lexicon: Please turn your attention to number 2. d.: 1. to pluck off, pull out 2. to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang a. to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate b. to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc. c. to sing to the music of the harp d. in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song

Yes, using instrumental music in worship is sinful…

You say, "Now if Paul says not to judge your Brothers in non-essential issues, then the CHOCD is clearly overstepping their boundaries in this case. My suggestion to the CHOCD is to take the log out of your own eye... then you'll be able to read your Strong's Concordance better! Like we said earlier, no one cares if the CHOCD wants to leave out musical instruments in their worship, that is their prerogative. The reason that this issue is so egregious is because they judge and condemn everyone else who chooses to use musical instruments like David did and as the Apostle Paul instructed. The real issue then becomes legalism, which absolutely permeates their thinking."

The type of music used in worship is not "non-essential" as you assert…

The word SING in Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13, and MAKE MELODY in Eph. 5:19 are translated from the Greek word PSALLO.

The word PSALM in 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; and Col. 3:16 is translated from the Greek word PSALMOS.

Some Greek lexicons say that these words can mean to sing to the accompaniment of a harp. Some people argue that this authorizes the use of instrumental music in worship.

The word PSALLO is consistently translated as SING or MAKE MELODY in your heart, and PSALMOS is translated PSALM or HYMN.

Not one major English translation ever says SING WITH A HARP or any other expression that IMPLIES the use of musical instruments.

From reading the English translations of the Bible, NO ONE would ever believe that instruments are included in the worship of the NT church if they weren't already indoctrinated as such by their denomination for one CANNOT get this understanding by only reading the NT.

If PSALLO and PSALMOS include the use of instruments, why don't the English translations state this as a fact that they are to be used in worship?

The men who made these translations were members of churches that use instruments in their worship to God!

If these words [PSALLO and PSALMOS] imply the use of instruments, why did these men NOT translate as such in order to defend their practice?

These men knew by the time the NT was written and in the context of NT passages, the words PSALLO and PSALMOS did NOT and DO NOT refer to instruments!!!

I challenge you to prove that I am a "legalist" as you assert…

Brian, do you fear God?

The Bible says: "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints," (Ps 89:7).

Does this mean that we can do anything that we please when we worship God?

Or is everything we do acceptable worship to God? I think not!

Fear has to be taught (Deut. 4:10; 14:23; Ps 34:11).

It is not casually absorbed.

If one fears God, he has been taught to fear.

Solomon sought the answer to the question of the purpose of life. After finding the emptiness of wealth, pleasure and wisdom, he concluded, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all" (Ecc. 12:13).

The same writer said that we should be in the fear of God all day long (Prov. 23:17). God placed man on earth to fear him and keep his commandments. That means everything else is secondary to that. Our purpose and function in life is not to work and make a living. We work and make a living so we can live and serve God with fear.

The Lord says that he will look on the one who "trembles at My word" (Isa. 66:2). David said, "My flesh trembles for fear of You, And I am afraid of Your judgments" (Ps 119:120). We ought to tremble in our boots at the thought of doing the things that displease God.

Paul said that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).

The reason is "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).

One who can knowingly do wrong and not be bothered at all obviously doesn't fear God.

We must DO what God says. While we do not live under the OT law (Gal. 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 3), books like Deuteronomy, which emphasize obedience to the law, serve to demonstrate the relationship of the fear of God to obedience.

Notice that connection in the following passages: "that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you..." (Deut. 6:2). "Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him" (Deut. 8:6). "You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and shall keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deut. 13:4).

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statues..." (Deut. 17:19). "If you fear the Lord and serve Him and obey His voice and do not rebel against the commandment of the Lord...." (1 Sam. 12:14).

The one who fears God, will obey to the utmost as Abraham did in his attempt to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:12). When God saw he was willing to go that far in obedience, he said, "Now I know that you fear God". This is obedience with no excuses, question or doubt.

Moses told God's people at Sinai that God''s presence on the mount (the display of thundering, lightening, sounding of the trumpet and the smoke on the mountain) was to test them "that his fear may be before you, so that you may not sin" (Exo. 20:20). Thus, if one fears God, he will hate sin and cease the practice of it.

The Psalmist said, "Because they do not change, therefore they do not fear God" (Ps 55:19). When people persist in sin and never change (whether an alien in the world or a supposed "Christian") the problem is they do not fear God.

If one honors God, he will have the utmost respect for his word.

Remember that Nehemiah described those among whom he worked (as he did himself) as those "who desire to fear...." Because of that fear they were attentive to Ezra as he read and explained the law (Neh. 8:2). They stood when Ezra opened the book in their presence (v. 5).

If we fear God we too will hold the word in high esteem. We should view the Bible as the inspired word that came from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 9:13). We should never forget that this is the book by which we will be judged in the last day (John 12:48). The way we refer to the word and the way we respond to it will reflect whether we respect it or not.

Instrumental music is a tradition of men and falls into the same category as the Jews' washing traditions (Mark 7:1-13).

The Bible does NOT in any way, shape, matter, or form authorize any kind of music for worship other than vocal music. The Bible ONLY authorizes singing. It does NOT authorize instruments of any sort. Now, if we are content with what is WRITTEN in the book of God then we will NEVER use instruments in our worship.

You say, "As an example, many people outside of the CHOCD are not aware of the extremely legalistic CHOCD position on marriage. They teach: if you were married but your spouse runs off with another man or woman (and years later you remarry) they insist that in order for you to become a member of their denomination, you must divorce your current spouse and track down your first spouse and remarry her. If she refuses to remarry you, you then must remain single for the rest of your life!"

No this is not "legalistic" as you assert… Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." According to your doctrine, Jesus is a "legalist"…

The apostle Paul said in Romans 7:2-3, "2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man."

You say, "I received an e-mail the other day from a frantic and frustrated lady. Her 92 year old dad (Jerry) was dying. Someone from the CHOCD sent a preacher over to see him because, although he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he had not been baptized for the remission of sins. According to the preacher, Jerry was going to hell (although the old man had been a Christian for over 40 years). When the CHOCD preacher found out that Jerry's first wife had run out on him 50 years ago and that he had remarried, the preacher told him that "if he wanted to go to heaven," he would have to do TWO things: 1) Get re-baptized the CHOCD way 2) Divorce his second wife (of 45 years) and repent for remarrying. Never mind the fact that they had three children. Never mind the fact that the man wasn't even a believer when he remarried. Never mind... anything. Just do it! And the senile old man, infused with fear and doubt, divorced his wife of 45 years. When he died, she was left penniless and brokenhearted."

This is a classic case of whether or not someone wants to obey man's laws or God's laws… Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

You say, "The CHOCD preacher, on the other hand, walked away with his head high (and nose in the air) "knowing" he just saved that man's soul."

How do you "know" that he had his "head high" "and nose in the air"??? Can you prove your assertion??? You sure do a good job at making assertions… This man obeyed God and was saved… Shouldn't you be rejoicing that one sinner was saved??? God says in Luke 15:10, "Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." You on the other hand just castigate this gospel preacher who admonished this man to repent of his sins and obey the gospel because he chose to obey God instead of man…

You say, "Many people outside of the CHOCD are shocked to hear the convoluted "logic" in this hyper-legalistic perspective."

Many people also have no desire to be saved… And would rather die a sinner rather than obey what God has specified one must do in order to be saved… God says in Matthew 7:14, "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

You say, "Remember, LEGALISM KILLS (II Corinthians 3:6)! It's a cancer than knows no bounds. You start out with a legalistic approach to any spiritual issue and eventually everything you do is out of fear. You develop a "better safe - than sorry" perspective on life. You start thinking that God is out to get you. He is watching you, just waiting for you to step out of line so He can squash you like a bug! Perfection ceases to be just a goal, it instead becomes a mandate. "If I want God to love me, I MUST be perfect." Sounds an awful lot like Mormonism. Which should not come as a surprise, because legalism is the main ingredient in every cultic organization. "It's my way, or the highway (to hell)."

Please explain what "legalism" and what "letter" is it that Paul was talking about in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that "kills"???
It is NOT legalism to call for obedience. See John 14:15…

We demonstrate our love to Christ by obedience and not lip-service. In order to please our Lord, we must keep His commandments.

Unfortunately, many on judgment day will be in the category of those who have called Jesus Lord, Lord and did NOT do the things that He said. (See Matthew 7:21-27).

Jesus said in John 14:21, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

If we keep the Lord's commands out of love, then God will in turn love us. It was God who first loved us that He gave us His Son.

Jesus said in John 14:23, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

God has already stated what He considers acceptable worship and it is our job to do what He says.

You say, "Most believers are willing to tolerate a certain level of legalism. Some folks would say that I am legalistic about a few things. Each person has to determine where to draw the line. Some Christians say that you should be in church every time the doors are open, "At least Sunday morning and Sunday and Wednesday night!" If the Scriptures stated that as a standard, then I would agree. But cultural norms and human traditions should not be elevated to the same level of authority as the Bible."

If the elders mandate that there will be a service on Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening, then everyone is obligated to attend all of these services for it is written in Hebrews 13:17, "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you."

You say, "In Matthew 15:7-9, Jesus said, "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees when He said that. They were the legalists of His day. I would venture to say that He would say the same thing to the CHOCD: "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

Really Brian??? Which "tradition" or "teaching" am I guilty of using that nullifies the word of God??? Please be specific how I "nullify the word of God" in your reply…

You say, "Once again, there are various positions on this issue within the CHOCD, but this is probably their most grievous error. Because it goes way beyond just rejecting the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in I Corinthians chapters 12-14. It also includes the rejection of His "enduement of power." Jesus said in Acts 1:4-8 that He would "baptize them in the Holy Spirit" and they would "receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." And we see the fulfillment of this promise on the day of Pentecost. Peter said in Acts 2:39, that the promise of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for every believer, for "as many as the Lord our God shall call!" In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus had also promised that the miraculous would follow those that believed, in Chapter 16, verse 17. Jesus promised in John 14:16, that the Holy Spirit "would be with us FOREVER!" Paul said in Romans 11:29 that, "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.""

Holy Spirit baptism was NEVER a command, ONLY a promise. (Matthew 3:11). Holy Spirit baptism NEVER saved anyone. There are ONLY two examples of Holy Spirit baptism. The first was on the day of Pentecost (To give power to the apostles) and the second was at Cornelius house (To show that Gentiles were accepted by God). The purpose of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was to; 1) Usher in the Kingdom (Mark 9:1) 2) Bestow miraculous powers upon the Apostles (Acts 1:8) and to; 3) Bring the Gentiles, as well, into the Kingdom (Acts 10:45) and that is ALL. Holy Spirit baptism was ONLY given to Cornelius and his household to convince the Jews that the Gentiles had a right to the gospel and NOT for salvation. (Acts 15:8-11).

You say, "he only verse that they can even attempt to take out of context to uphold their dispensational outlook is I Cor. 13:10, that states at some point in time ("when that which is perfect comes") the miraculous will be done away with. They believe "that which is perfect" was the canonization of the Scriptures. But when you read this statement in context, you see that it couldn't be what or when they say it is. First of all, the Apostle Paul virtually tells us when it would happen, in verse 12, by telling us what would transpire at the arrival of "that which is perfect." He says, "For NOW we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN we will see face to face; NOW I know in part, but THEN I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known"."

Brian, I can assure you Holy Spirit baptism doesn't exist today, and there are no more apostles. Spiritual gifts were for the church in its infancy. They were called childish things that would be put away when the church became mature. Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:11, "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child...But when I became a man (mature) I put away childish things". Speaking of the miraculous gifts, that in verse 8 "will vanish away" and in verse 9 "will be done away". The only way the church could become complete (mature) was through ALL Scripture . (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The complete (perfect) law of liberty. (Jas. 1:25). In the years following the establishment of the church, the will of God had not been fully revealed, written and confirmed by miracles. It was yet in part!!! The sole purpose of miracles was to CONFIRM the newly revealed work. (John 20:30-31). Once all scripture was given by inspiration of God, confirmed and written, it became the COMPLETE (PERFECT) Law of Liberty, able to make the man of God Perfect (Complete), thoroughly furnished unto every good work. (2 Tim. 3:17).

Since we now have that which is "perfect" (1 Cor. 3:10), that which is Complete Mature, Confirmed word of God, in which are "all things that pertain to life and Godliness" and by which we can become Complete (Mature) as Christians, there remains NO NEED for gifts today. They have served the purpose for which they were intended!!!

People like you Brian who claim Holy Spirit baptism and miraculous gifts today obviously do so WITHOUT Biblical support. You are a PRETENDER and a FALSE CLAIMANT of something that DOES NOT EXIST. You knowingly or unknowingly arrogantly place yourself on an equality with the apostles.

You say, "To prove that the miraculous didn't cease at the canonization of the Scriptures, all you have to do is plug their theory into verse 12, every time Paul says the word THEN. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN, at the canonization of scripture (300 AD), we will see face to face; now I know in part, but THEN, at the canonization of scripture, I shall know fully as I also have been fully known." The term "face to face" was used in Paul's day (as it is in our day) as a very literal term. At the canonization of scripture, who or what did Paul see "face to face?" At the canonization of scripture, how did the Apostle Paul grow in knowledge? He had been in Heaven for over 200 years! The fact of the matter is that when Paul referred to "that which is perfect" he was simply referring to the second coming of Christ, or when we would go home to glory, whichever came first. Will you gain knowledge when you get to heaven? Absolutely! Will you see anyone (Jesus, for example) "face to face?" Undoubtedly! So this verse is obviously a very precarious place to hang one's hat in an attempt to prove that the miraculous workings of God, through the power of His Holy Spirit, have ceased!"

The reason the gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT were given, to CONFIRM THE WORD. SPIRITUAL GIFTS have ceased, because NO ONE can take up serpents without getting KILLED, NO ONE can drink any deadly thing without getting KILLED, and NO ONE can hands on the sick and make them WELL.

Holy Spirit baptism is nothing but a figment of man's imagination and you have been deceived. There is ONE passage which completely puts to rest your false doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism and that is where the Eunuch asked to be baptized in water after Philip preached Jesus unto him. (Acts 8:35-39). Sorry, Holy Spirit baptism does not fit here, so it is false doctrine. Remember, there is only ONE baptism. (Ephesians 4:5). Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in "something," and a "being raised" from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view. On the other hand, if the "Spirit" is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently "raised from" the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong - thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.

The word "perfect" means "complete" or "whole." The phrase, "that which," indicates the word "perfect" refers to something, not someone. Yet, some apply this to Jesus Christ. They say these miraculous gifts were designed to continue until the Lord comes again. Since the Lord has not come again, they believe the gifts of the Spirit continue. This cannot be true. Paul did not write "when He who is perfect has come." He said "that which is perfect." Paul's words do not fit the context if we apply them to Jesus. Also, we must remember that the word "perfect" literally means "complete" or "whole." It does not refer to sinless perfection, but to maturity, or completion. That is its meaning in the original language of the New Testament. In I Corinthians 13, the completion of the New Testament is under consideration.

There is something else in 1 Corinthians 13:13 which clearly shows that "perfect" cannot refer to Christ's second coming. Hope will no longer exist when Christ comes again. Remember, Paul wrote "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three." In other words, faith, hope and love will abide after that which is perfect is come. Now, when Christ comes again, will hope continue? Will we still be hoping to see our Lord once He has come again? Of course not. He will be with us! Therefore, "that which is perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 cannot refer to Christ. Notice another of Paul's statements about hope in Romans 8:24: "For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?" Hope that is seen is not hope. When I have seen that which I have hoped for, it is no longer hope, it has become reality. So Paul asks... for why does one still hope for what he sees?"

Here is a summary of Paul's inspired argument showing "that which is perfect" cannot refer to Christ's second coming. Paul states that hope will continue after "that which is perfect has come" (1 Cor. 13:13). However, there will be no hope for Christ's coming after He has come (Romans 8:24). Therefore, "that which is perfect" cannot refer to Christ and His second coming.

In 1 Corinthians 13: 11, Paul uses the illustration of the child who grows to the full-grown man. Paul was showing how the infant church was to grow to completion or wholeness with the completed written revelation given by the Holy Spirit. The Bible itself claims to be all-sufficient. Why do we need miraculous gifts now that the Bible is complete? We are now in the time Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, predicted would come. The fact that the Holy Spirit is not operating directly and miraculously today does not mean God is not active in the lives of His people. The providence of God is promised in the Scriptures, and it is present with His people today. God answers prayer through His providence. God can and does overrule in matters, through natural means, without the need for a direct miraculous operation of His Holy Spirit. The Spirit influences today by means of the inspired Word!

You say, "But some (not all) of the members of the CHOCD go even further in their defiance of the Holy Spirit, and say that he is not even a person of the Trinity. The Bible is very clear in attributing personhood to the Holy Spirit by stating that the Holy Spirit has a will (I Cor 12:11); that He can be grieved (Eph 4:30); that He would be our Teacher (John 14:26) and more. Many of the CHOCDs even come dangerously close to committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31) by saying that any manifestation of the miraculous in this day and age are all 100% demonic!"

Yes, the Holy Spirit is God…

You say, "Take it from me, I am living proof that God still performs miracles today. Because in 1979, while a member of the CHOCD… I committed suicide. My family was falling apart, and thanks to the erroneous teachings of the CHOCD, all I had to fall back on was a "religion," not a living, personal relationship with the living Lord of the Universe. So faced with a future of hopelessness and despair, I took an overdose (130+) of sleeping pills, and laid down to die. But because of the mercy and grace of our loving Creator, a minister friend of mine from the Christian Church came by (after the pills had been in my system for nearly six hours!) As he struggled to help me get dressed to go to the hospital (with the rescue squad on its way), I lapsed into a coma. I went stiff as a board and my eyes rolled back in my head and I keeled over. But on the way to the hospital, as my friend prayed for me, I came to! I had no adverse side effects, other than being thirsty and feeling like I hadn't slept in days. The doctors didn't have a clue. My minister friend didn't even know what to think either. My own earthly Father went to the grave suspecting that the whole thing was an effort to get attention. Hey, you don't take over 100 sleeping pills to get anyone's attention but a mortician!"

It is unfortunate that your family was "falling apart"… Is this how Satan got to you??? Just because someone "prayed for you" is no proof that this is what caused you to "come to"… Nor is it proof that this caused you to have "no adverse side effects"… This is merely your assertion, nothing more… It is also "unfortunate" that you claim that all you had to fall back on was "religion"… It is obvious that you were not truly converted when you obeyed the gospel, otherwise you would not have made that statement… It appears that you had no root and were not truly converted because you let the things of this world get to you (See Luke 8:13) and tried to kill yourself just as Judas converted and did the same thing as it is written in Matt 27:5, "…He threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself."

You say, "So now maybe you can see why I feel so strongly about reaching the poor souls that have fallen prey to the dead theology of the CHOCD. Legalism robs a believer of their Joy! And since the Joy of the Lord is your strength (Nehemiah 8:10), then legalism is a parasite that will sap you of your ability to stand when the storms of life come your way. If the CHOCD wants to be a TRUE representation of the New Testament Church, then they must embrace that which the original church embraced. I am grateful for the basic biblical foundation that I received while in the CHOCD, but even more grateful that Jesus has shown me a "more excellent way!""

You have not proven that 1. The church of Christ has a "dead theology"; nor that 2. They are legalists; nor that 3. The church of Christ is "not" a TRUE representation of the New Testament church, so your conclusions are false and are to be rejected…

You say, "Conclusions: Their Tactics The CHOCD uses four main tactics in debating their pet doctrines. These tactics are generally used by all cults. They are: 1. Change the subject 2. Take scripture out of context 3. Straw man arguments 4. Ad hominem attacks (attacking you instead of the issue) The way to counter these tactics is very simple: Stay on the subject until you are allowed to make your point! And remember, your opinion is no better than their opinion. Base all of your conclusions on the Final Authority… God's Word!"

I can assure you that: 1. I have not changed the subject… 2. I have not taken "scripture out of context"… 3. I am not guilty of "straw man arguments"… 4. I have not attacked "you instead of the issue"…

You say, "Are They A Cult? Years ago the Lord gave us an acronym for cults: C. Claim to be The Only True Christians U. Unorthodox Extra-biblical Revelation L. Lying Leaders (History/Doctrine) T. THE Way (Salvation is found only in their organization) S. Salvation By Works (obedience to ordinances such as baptism) As you can see the only area that the CHOCD doesn't qualify for the title is that they don't have any unorthodox extra-biblical revelation that they would put on par with God's Word. But, they do: 1. Claim to be the Only True Christians 2. Lie about their history, by claiming that they can trace their roots to the day of Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts. They also mislead people about some of their doctrines, by not telling prospective members what they really believe up front (Billy Graham is not a true Christian?). 3. They are the one and only true "Body of Christ." No one goes to the Father outside of their denomination! 4. Their salvation occurs the moment they "DO" their part and get baptized. And you must recognize that it is the baptism that remits your sins, or it is of no effect!"

Belief of and obedience to the Word of God is the difference between the church of Christ and your denominational world Brian…

Since the church for which Christ died (Acts 20:28) is not a denomination, and since God adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47), and since all the saved are in the church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:21-23), it is correct to say, "We (in the church of Christ) are Christians only, and the only Christians." This claim is neither bigoted nor prejudicial. It is, on the other hand, respectful of truth (John 8:32).

To imply that we are not the only Christians is to imply that there are Christians in all churches. To believe this, one would have to believe that one church is as good as another; and to believe this, one would have to deny that the Lord has only one church.

The ONLY Christians are those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and "Christians only" means that we are not a part of your denominational world with its names, creeds, and doctrines.

The church of Christ is emphatically not a cult. Out of nine common defining characteristics of cults, the church of Christ of which I am a member does not even practice one. The church of Christ is not a manipulative, harmful, brainwashed, deceptive, man-made organization. Rather, it is a group of sincere Christians who are trying their best to serve God, to love their fellow man, and to go to heaven when this life is over and I challenge you to prove otherwise…

You say, "Closing Comments So are they a cult? No. Are they as close as you can get to the edge of that perilous pit without falling in? Based on the Word of God, I would say an emphatic "YES!" If you are a member of the CHOCD, please seek the Lord's help in attaining true freedom in Christ. You might start by reading the book of Galatians."

Brian, do you think that we are NOT under any sort of "law" in the New Testament???

The Bible plainly teaches we are "under law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21).

The Bible also teaches that we humans are free moral agents. God has set before us a blessing and a curse -- a blessing if we OBEY His commands, and a CURSE if we choose to DISOBEY (Deut. 11:26-28; Rom. 2:6-9).

The Bible also says: "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it." (2 John 6).

If you say that we are NOT under law anymore, then you need to read more of the New Testament.

The Bible says, under the New Covenant (which is the New Testament), ONLY those with God's law in their hearts are the people of God.

How then can we have the law of God written on our hearts?

By hearing His word.

Each of us should ask ourselves: Is the law of God being written on my heart? If it is, it will not be by accident. Paul told the believers at Corinth that they were a letter of Christ, "written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart." (2 Cor. 3:2-3).

James tells us that we must receive the word of God into our hearts like a seed so it can produce fruit in our lives: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:21-25).

Romans chapter 8 does not give us freedom as children of God to live any way we please. Romans 8:14 says that "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

Christian freedom IS based upon law, the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21), and upon order or enforcement of that law, effected through OBEDIENCE. (Heb. 5:9; Jn. 8:36).

You say, "If you have a loved one in the CHOCD (especially the International CHOC), please do all that is within your realm of influence to reach them." My personal relationship with Jesus Christ has been one of great sorrows but even greater joys. Ironically, when I became a member of the CHOCD, my father's side of the family basically disowned me because they were mostly atheists. But then when I left the CHOCD, I became the "black sheep of the family" on my mother's side, because they were all from the CHOCD! But I have never regretted the decision, and I never will. The love, joy and peace that I have found in a personal intimate relationship with Jesus, far surpasses what any list of "DOs and DON'Ts" could ever offer!"

Obedience to God is REQUIRED of his servants. (See Romans 16:26). How different is this from people who say that we don't have to keep any law. The Bible says that we are under law, "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25) and the New Testament writers obviously thought that we could keep it. Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures make the man of God "perfect". This word indicates the child of God is made complete by the Word. One will never be complete spiritually by heeding man's doctrines, creeds, catechisms and opinions. Paul then says the man of God will be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works". That is, he will be equipped with what he needs to serve God faithfully. He knows what his Father requires of him, and he gladly performs it with gratitude for the mercy and grace shown to him.

You say, "Our biggest concern for our brothers and sisters in the CHOCD is the snare of legalism. The CHOCD seems to be more concerned with the length of your hair than they are the condition of your heart. They tend to strain gnats and swallow camels. They seem to be more concerned with peripheral things and miss the weightier matters. I have seen CHOCDs that knew some members were molesting members of the church and nothing was done about it, but GOD FORBID if anyone puts up a Christmas tree! There just doesn't seem to be any balance. The CHOCD claims to be an exact duplicate of the original New Testament church. When you point out how radically different they really are from the original NT church, they blow it off and say, "That was then, this is now." Well, then don't claim to be a duplicate of the early church. Facsimile? Maybe. Duplicate? No way."

How do we know that we have fellowship with Jesus??? The Apostle John gives us the answer in 1 John 2:3, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." Keeping His commandments is NOT hard for John also says in 1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."

The TEST of knowing Jesus is KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS and we are COMMANDED to 1. Believe the gospel, 2. Repent of our sins, 3. Confess our Faith in the gospel, 4. Be Baptized FOR the remission of our sins, 5. And to be Faithful until death.

Obedience to the gospel is the easy part, remaining a Christian and working out your salvation with "fear and trembling" and "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ". (2 Corinthians 10:5) is the hard part.

You say, "If the CHOCD is a duplicate of the original church (and they "speak where the Bible speaks, and they are silent where the Bible is silent") then why don't they: Greet one another with a Holy Kiss? Romans 16:16 says, "Salute one another with an holy kiss."

This was only a custom and is not a commandment that one must observe…

You say, "Why don't they have signs following them? Jesus said in Mark 16:17-20, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

If you would have continued to verse 20 you would have your answer…

Signs were given to confirm the word for God says, "…the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs…"

You say, "Why don't they sell all of their belongings and share everything with each other? Like in Acts 2:45, "And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

This is not necessary… Nor is it a commandment that we sell all of our possessions and goods…

You say, "Why do they forbid to speak in tongues? I Corinthians 14:39 says, "Brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

Because as I have explained earlier spiritual gifts have ceased…

You say, "When someone is sick in your congregation, do the Elders come over and anoint the sick with oil and pray for healing? James 5:14 asks, "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

We do not need to "anoint" someone with "oil" in order for them to be healed… If you will merely look at verse 15, it is the "prayer of faith" that saves, not the "anointing with oil" for it is written, "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up."

Also in James 5:16, "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."

You say, "Why don't you meet together, everyday like the early church did? Acts 2:46, "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts."

First, there is no "temple" where we can meet "daily"… Second, this was never given as a commandment that we meet "daily" in order to serve God…

You say, "The fact is the CHOCD sometimes speaks where the Bible speaks and sometimes they are silent when the Bible is silent. The problem is that they are inconsistent. When you ask them if they "Greet one another with a holy kiss," they will say, "that was just a mid-eastern custom." But if you ask them if "it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair," then that is a COMMANDMENT!"

I can assure you it is not a "commandment" for a woman to keep her hair long… If a woman wants to have short hair, that is her prerogative…

You say, "The bottom line is that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. It's all about what JESUS did on the cross, not what somebody does in some puddle of water. It's the blood that remits sin, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Even if baptism was essential, 99% of the protestant church is baptized, so like Hebrews 6 says, let's move on! We baptize every single new believer, just like the Lord told us to. But after the baptism, we teach the new convert to move on to maturity. Why keep looking back at your baptism, when you should be looking forward to Jesus. Too many churches concentrate on the Body of Christ (the church) instead of its Head. It's all about JESUS!"

Jesus says: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matt 10:34)

Rev 19:15-16 "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS."

Rev 19:21 "And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse."

What is the SWORD?

Eph 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;"

This is what happened to the man who thought that he didn't have to do anything and was a coward and DID NOT DO what God had told him to do in His Word. This is someone who claims that he is saved by "faith alone in what Jesus did on the Cross" and did not do the things required by Him in order to be saved…

You say, "TO MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST:If you can serve the Lord with all your heart in the CHOCD and stay strong in Him until the day you die, then stay in the CHOCD. The web site is not for you, then. It is for people who are in the CHOCD that are looking for more of Jesus. They are tired of a religion, and want a true, deep, sincere relationship with God. So if you have been wondering, "Is this all there is?" The answer is, no. Jesus has a lot more for you than just a "religion." He wants to have a real, vital, genuine relationship with you, and it is just a prayer away!!"

Does saying a prayer save someone???

Let's see if this is true:

Many like you Brian believe that all that is necessary to be saved is to say, "I accept Christ as my personal savior."

This is true if one is willing to accept Him and obey his will, but only saying I accept Christ as savior, without repentance, confession and baptism is NOT in accordance with the Word of God.

Consider this, if one is saved without baptism one is saved outside of Christ. Galatians 3:27 says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

People today teach many things which are NOT in accordance with God's word. I would encourage you to study diligently the book of Acts. This book contains many examples of people becoming Christians.

Your soul is at stake here so it should be of great importance to you to search the scriptures to see what is truth and what is error.

In The great commission Jesus told the disciples to teach all nations and that people needed to Believe, Repent, and be Baptized to be saved (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46,47).

There is NOT ONE word said about an alien sinner praying for the Lord to save him.

In the sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21). This teaches that God WILL NOT forgive in answer to the sinner's prayer but that He wants men to do his will.

The will of Christ is found in the Great Commission requiring steps to be taken for one to be saved.

In the book of Acts we have many cases of conversion recorded. NOT ONE OF THEM were told to pray the sinners prayer to be forgiven. Someone may ask, Wasn't Simon told to repent and pray that the thought of his heart might be forgiven him? (Acts 8:22). Yes, but Simon is a case of an erring child of God and such a one is always told to repent, confess sins, and pray for forgiveness. Simon had believed, been baptized, and continued with the disciples for some time before he erred by trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:13-18).

Another may ask about the prayers of Cornelius being heard as recorded in Acts 10:1-4. It is not a matter of prayer being heard but of God forgiving in answer to prayer. Cornelius was told to send for Peter who would tell him "words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11:14).

After he was taught he was COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). It is safe to say that NO ALIEN SINNER in the first century was ever told to pray for forgiveness.

Romans 10:13 states, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

However, this is NOT a justification of praying a sinner's prayer.

There are three questions asked about this in verse 14:

1) "And how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
2) And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
3) And how shall they hear without a preacher?"

To call on the name of the Lord one has to have heard the word because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17).

How did people respond to the gospel message preached to them?

They cried out "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) and were told to "Repent and be Baptized" (Acts 2:38). According to Acts 2:21 this is calling on the name of the Lord to be saved. It is NOT a prayer. It is Hearing, Believing, Repenting and being Baptized. Paul knew this because Ananias came into the house where he was down praying and told him "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). Here is one praying the sinner's prayer and had been praying it for three days but was told that instead of tarrying around praying he needed to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.

You see the only way to get into the death of Christ is to be baptized into his death (Rom. 6:3).

You DO NOT get into the death of Christ by praying the sinner's prayer. In contrast you do have the blood to cleanse if, as an erring child of God, you confess your sins and pray for forgiveness (1 John 1:7-9).

You who preach the praying of the sinner's prayer are MIXED UP on the teaching of the scriptures.

Jesus gave a parable in Luke 18:9-14 of a Pharisee and a Publican praying. The Pharisee told God how good he was while the Publican "smote on his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." The Lord said he was justified rather than the Pharisee.

Now this is NOT an example of conversion by the sinner's prayer. These were both children of God under the law of Moses and so fall into the category of erring children. Such are to repent and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22-24).

God is NO respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34-35). The people of the first century had to Believe, Repent, Confess and be Baptized to be saved which are same things we have to do to be saved.

To be a Christian, one must OBEY FROM THE HEART! What must he obey? "THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE." (Romans 6:17-18). Of a truth, this doctrine or teaching implies commandments given from on high, and requires that one OBEY to be free from sin.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin
Edited by:

His email reply and my response

Kevin,

My name is Brian Cooper, and I too, am a member of the Church of Christ (just not your particular denomination).

Thanks for writing. You give a good defense, but it's all the same old CHOCD stuff that we get everyday. Most of what you say about the web site is somewhat out of context, but I respect your position and agree with many of your points, just not your conclusions.

In Jesus,

Brian

Brian,

You assert that you are a member of the church of Christ... Your problem is you cannot prove this through the New Testament...

I can assure you that I am not a member of any denomination as you assert...

Thanks for your response...

If what I said about your website is "out of context" then how about explaining to me how I am guilty of doing this that you allege???

It doesn't surprise me that you don't agree with my conclusions...

You also assert that you are "In Jesus"... In order to be "In Jesus", one must be a member of the church and according to your website, you left the church some time ago...

I said in the beginning of my email that if you can show me through the Scriptures that my beliefs are wrong, then I will change my beliefs and I asked if you were willing to do the same... I gather from your email response that you have no intention of "enlightening" me or even discussing the things you mention on your website that are not in accordance with God's word...

If you change your mind, I stand ready to reason with you to determine who is teaching error and who is teaching the truth of God's word...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His second email reply and my response

Kevin,

You said:

"You also assert that you are "In Jesus"... In order to be "In Jesus", one must be a member of the church and according to your website, you left the church some time ago..."

This is typical Church of Christ denominational circular logic. I never left Jesus, just your denomination.

In Jesus,
Brian
1John 4:15

Brian,

You say, "This is typical Church of Christ denominational circular logic. I never left Jesus, just your denomination."
You have yet to prove that I am in a "denomination", this is merely another of your assertions...

This is not "circular logic" as you claim, God states that if you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ (whether or not you have confessed Jesus) that you do not have God for it is written in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." You have departed from the doctrine of Christ for many of your beliefs cannot be found in God's word...

You claim that Jesus is your "lord", but you do not do what He says for it is written in Matt 7:21, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." and again in Luke 6:46, "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?"

You assert that you are "in Jesus" however, according to what is written in the New Testament, you are not and have been deceived...

You claim on your website that one can say a prayer and accept Jesus... This is nonsense for I can assure you there is not one example of anyone in the New Testament ever praying for salvation...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His third email reply and my response

Kevin,

You address 50 subject at once. One at a time, please.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

Which one would you like to discuss first???

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin
Edited by: NavyscpoRetired at: 6/19/05 6:13 am

Kevin,

You pick.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You are the one that is claiming that the church of Christ is teaching false doctrine...

I responded by email to your website and you claimed that I addressed 50 subjects at once..

I asked you which one you would like to discuss first to which you replied, "you pick"...

I have sent you two emails that contain all of the so called 50 subjects that you say I addressed at once...

If you would like to continue the discussion, you choose and let me know which response I made to you that was as you say "out of context" or "circular logic" per your email response...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His fifth email reply and my response

Kevin,

Pick any topic that you feel is most important.

In Jesus,
Brian

PS How about my closing "In Jesus"?
Brian,

You say, "Pick any topic that you feel is most important."

They are all important...

You say, "PS How about my closing "In Jesus"?"

How does one get "In Jesus" according to your doctrine???

What does the Bible say???

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His sixth email reply and my response

Kevin,

I am a little leary addressing this topic with you because you are rather antagonistic. Most of the time when I have addressed issues like this with folks from your denomination, they get very fleshly and mean. I assume we can keep this cordial and Christ-like...right?

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "I am a little leary addressing this topic with you because you are rather antagonistic."
Please explain how I am being "antagonistic"???

You wrote, "Most of the time when I have addressed issues like this with folks from your denomination, they get very fleshly and mean."
I can assure you that I am not "mean" nor will I attack you as a person... My only intent is to discuss our beliefs and how they agree or disagree with what the Bible says...

You wrote, "I assume we can keep this cordial and Christ-like...right?"
You have assumed correctly...

Like I have told you before if you can prove to me from God's word that my beliefs are wrong, then I will change my beliefs...

Are you willing to do the same???

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His seventh email reply and my response

Kevin,

You asked me to explain why I think you are antagonistic. You said:

You assert that you are "in Jesus" however, according to what is written in the New Testament, you are not and have been deceived...

That sounds pretty antagonistic to me. Also arrogant, judgmental and high-minded.

Not once did I accuse you of being "outside" of Christ.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You accurately quoted my words when you stated, "You assert that you are "in Jesus" however, according to what is written in the New Testament, you are not and have been deceived.."

Then you wrote, "That sounds pretty antagonistic to me. Also arrogant, judgmental and high-minded."
No this is not "antagonistic" nor is it "arrogant" nor "judgmental" nor is it even "high-minded" but the truth according to God's word...

We have not even started this discussion and yet you are already calling me names...

If you can prove that what I stated is not the truth according to God's word, then I will quickly apologize...

I attacked your belief, just as I stated I was going to do and nothing more...

You stated you wanted to discuss "How about my closing "In Jesus"?"

In my email reply, I asked you: "How does one get "In Jesus" according to your doctrine???"

Then I said, "What does the Bible say???"

Instead of calling me names, let's get back to the subject you stated you were willing to discuss first...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His eighth email reply and my response

Kevin,

You said:

You accurately quoted my words when you stated, "You assert that you are "in Jesus" however, according to what is written in the New Testament, you are not and have been deceived.."

Then you wrote, "That sounds pretty antagonistic to me. Also arrogant, judgmental and high-minded."
No this is not "antagonistic" nor is it "arrogant" nor "judgmental" nor is it even "high-minded" but the truth according to God's word...

We have not even started this discussion and yet you are already calling me names...

Our response:

You keep getting off on the wrong foot, Kevin. I'm calling you names? Deal with the issue. I only brought up the fact that you said that I am not even a Christian (you said I am not "in Christ") which is the very definition of being judgmental.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "You keep getting off on the wrong foot, Kevin. I'm calling you names?"

Please explain how am I "getting off on the wrong foot"???

Yes, you did for you called me: "arrogant", "high minded" and "judgmental"...

I have not called you any names now have I Brian??? I have stated you are "not In Jesus" and I can assure you this is not name calling, nor is it arrogant, nor high-minded nor is it even judgmental...

You wrote, "Deal with the issue."

I have been attempting to get "you" to deal with the issue and to date the only thing you have done is to call me names...

You wrote, "I only brought up the fact that you said that I am not even a Christian (you said I am not "in Christ") which is the very definition of being judgmental."
Then I asked you to prove from your doctrine what "In Jesus" meant and also what does the Bible say and you have done neither of these things... If what I say is not true, then I challenge you to prove from God's word that what I say is not the truth...

There is nothing "judgmental" in saying that you are not "In Jesus"... If you are "In Jesus" as you assert, then you should have no problem proving this through God's word...

According to your reasoning, Jesus was also "judgmental" for He said to the Jews in John 8:44-45, "44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me."

Instead of calling me names without offering any proof, please prove your assertion that you are "In Jesus"...

You wanted to begin with this subject...

The ball is in your court...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His ninth email reply and my response

Kevin,

You know that I sign my e-mails "In Jesus." You claim that I am NOT in Jesus. I John 4:15 says, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." Are you saying that the Holy Spirit (as He inspired Jesus' best friend, John) was wrong?

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "You know that I sign my e-mails "In Jesus." You claim that I am NOT in Jesus. I John 4:15 says, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." Are you saying that the Holy Spirit (as He inspired Jesus' best friend, John) was wrong?"
Not at all...

Please explain how your closing of "In Jesus" proves that you are making the confession that "Jesus is the Son of God"???

I say your closing of "In Jesus" is not confessing that Jesus is the "Son of God"...

How does one confess that Jesus is the "Son of God"???

Do we have any examples in the New Testament where someone has made this confession???

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His tenth email reply and my response

Kevin,

I confess to you and the entire world that Jesus is the Son of God. He now abides in me and I abide in Him (according to I John 4:15). You might want to look up the Greek definition of the word "confess" before you try to say that it referrs to baptism.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "I confess to you and the entire world that Jesus is the Son of God. He now abides in me and I abide in Him (according to I John 4:15)."
If this is all that one needed to do was to "confess that Jesus is the Son of God" in order to be saved then I would agree with you however, this is not the case... Is this the only thing your doctrine teaches that one must do in order to "abide in Him"??? According to Romans 10:10, "...confession is made unto salvation." If all one had to do was to "confess that Jesus is the Son of God", then God would not require one to "believe unto righteousness" that is also found in Romans 10:10...

Do you keep God's commandments Brian???

Jesus said in John 6:56, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." Does this mean that all one has to do is to eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood in order to abide in Him???

Certainly not...

One must take everything that the Bible teaches on any given subject and I can assure you that one must do more than "confess" that Jesus is the Son of God in order for Jesus to "abide in Him"...

The apostle Paul told Timothy in 1 Tim 6:12, "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses."

There is one example of the "good confession" and that is found in Acts 8:37, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." With this "confession", Jesus did not abide in the Ethiopian eunuch because he first had to believe with all of his heart, then he had to be baptized in water for the remission of his sins...

You wrote, "You might want to look up the Greek definition of the word "confess" before you try to say that it referrs to baptism."
I had no intention of stating this verse "refers to baptism"...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: His eleventh email reply and my response

Kevin,

So I confess that Jesus is Lord and I have been baptized by immersion in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost... and you still say that I am not "In Jesus." WHY?

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

Did you even bother to look at my last email???

I asked several questions that you did not answer...

You initially wrote, "You know that I sign my e-mails "In Jesus." You claim that I am NOT in Jesus. I John 4:15 says, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." Are you saying that the Holy Spirit (as He inspired Jesus' best friend, John) was wrong?"
To which I replied, "Please explain how your closing of "In Jesus" proves that you are making the confession that "Jesus is the Son of God"???"

Then you responded with, "I confess to you and the entire world that Jesus is the Son of God. He now abides in me and I abide in Him (according to I John 4:15). You might want to look up the Greek definition of the word "confess" before you try to say that it referrs to baptism."
You did not answer the question... Please answer the queston... I am still waiting for you to prove how your closing of "In Jesus" shows that you are making the confession that "Jesus is the Son of God"...

You also have not addressed what I wrote to you in my last email...

Before I answer your latest assertion, how about responding to my last email before we continue...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin
"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:14).

Kevin

Re: His eleventh email reply and my response

Kevin,

One subject at a time. I heard, I belived, I repented, I confessed, I was baptized. What did I do wrong?

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "One subject at a time. I heard, I belived, I repented, I confessed, I was baptized. What did I do wrong?"
You are the one who is adding subject(s) to each email that you send without bothering to answer my previous emails...

Before we continue any further, please address my last two emails...

Then we can continue with your latest additions...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: Email 12 reply and my response

Kevin,

I am addressing your comments. You obviously are trying to evade the question. I will restate. If you evade again, I will assume that you no longer want to dialog.

I heard, I believed, I confessed, I repented and I was baptized, but you say that I am NOT "In Jesus." Why? How do you defend your position?

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "I am addressing your comments."
Let's see if what you say is true...

You initially wrote, "You know that I sign my e-mails "In Jesus." You claim that I am NOT in Jesus. I John 4:15 says, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." Are you saying that the Holy Spirit (as He inspired Jesus' best friend, John) was wrong?"
To which I replied, "Please explain how your closing of "In Jesus" proves that you are making the confession that "Jesus is the Son of God"???"

Then you responded with, "I confess to you and the entire world that Jesus is the Son of God. He now abides in me and I abide in Him (according to I John 4:15). You might want to look up the Greek definition of the word "confess" before you try to say that it referrs to baptism."
You did not answer the question... Please answer the queston... I am still waiting for you to prove how your closing of "In Jesus" shows that you are making the confession that "Jesus is the Son of God"...

I asked you the following question: "Is this the only thing your doctrine teaches that one must do in order to "abide in Him"???

To date you have not responded to this question...

I responded with, "According to Romans 10:10, "...confession is made unto salvation." If all one had to do was to "confess that Jesus is the Son of God", then God would not require one to "believe unto righteousness" that is also found in Romans 10:10... "

To which you replied, ""...

The quotations are "empty" because you did not respond...

You also did not answer the following question: "Do you keep God's commandments Brian???"

To date there has been no response to this question...

I also wrote, "Jesus said in John 6:56, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." Does this mean that all one has to do is to eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood in order to abide in Him???"

I answered my own question with: "Certainly not..."

You did not bother to comment or answer the question...

Why did you not respond???

I wrote, "One must take everything that the Bible teaches on any given subject and I can assure you that one must do more than "confess" that Jesus is the Son of God in order for Jesus to "abide in Him"..."

To which you replied, ""...

Again the quotations are "empty" because you did not respond...

So your stating of "I am addressing your comments." is false...

You wrote, "You obviously are trying to evade the question."

No, I am not trying to "evade the question" as you assert for I even said in my last email: "
Before we continue any further, please address my last two emails... Then we can continue with your latest additions..."

You wrote, "I will restate. If you evade again, I will assume that you no longer want to dialog."
I restated a question for you and you did not bother to respond so am I to assume that you are evading???

As you can see from what I posted above, you are the one who is doing the "evading" and not answering questions...

Please answer the questions that I posed to you above, then we can continue this discussion...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: Email 13 reply and my response

Kevin,

Write back when you grow up.

In Jesus,
Brian

Brian,

You wrote, "Write back when you grow up."

I can assure you that I am "grown up"...You seem to be the one who is "throwing a fit" and acting like a "child" since you seem unable to answer simple questions that I have asked of you...

This type of email response from you does not surprise me in the least Brian...

Is this the "Christ like" attitude you were talking about that you feared when we first started this discussion???

Your very words show that you are clearly not displaying this attitude...

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: Email 14 reply and my response

Kevin,

I heard the Gospel, I believed the Gospel, I confessed, I repented of my sins, and I was baptized (immersion) in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Yet you say that I am not "In Jesus." Why?

In Jesus,
Brian
Just answer this one simple question and then we will be able to move on. Your previous e-mails contain many issues in each e-mail. It gets VERY convoluted. Let's start with you answering this simple question, and go from there...one issue at a time. I am willing to answer ANY questions that you ask, but I need to understand where you are coming from first. I will answer 5 questions (one at a time) if you will answer just this one.

Brian,

You wrote, "I heard the Gospel, I believed the Gospel, I confessed, I repented of my sins, and I was baptized (immersion) in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Yet you say that I am not "In Jesus." Why?"
I asked you several questions in my last email that you did not respond to except to tell me to "grow up"...

You wrote, "Just answer this one simple question and then we will be able to move on."
I am trying to get you to "answer" just a few simple questions, and it appears that you are unable (or unwilling) to do this... It appears that you want the cart before the horse... We are discussing your doctrine (that is if I can ever get you to answer my questions) and then we will discuss mine...

You wrote, " Your previous e-mails contain many issues in each e-mail. It gets VERY convoluted."
Really??? Please explain how this is possible since I broke up each question for you so that it would not be hard for you to miss and easy to answer???

You wrote, " Let's start with you answering this simple question, and go from there...one issue at a time."
It appears that you are the one who is "unwilling" to answer one "simple question"...

Please explain how I am guilty of bringing up more than "one issue at a time"???

You wrote, " I am willing to answer ANY questions that you ask, but I need to understand where you are coming from first."
Yea right... We began this discussion with me asking you two questions:

"How does one get "In Jesus" according to your doctrine???"

To which you have not responded...

My second question:

"What does the Bible say???"

To which you have also not responded....

This is right in line with the other non-responses from you to my other questions I restated for you in my last email...

You wrote, "I will answer 5 questions (one at a time) if you will answer just this one."
When you said, "I am answering your questions" and then you were shown the error of your assertion in my last email, how do you expect me to believe that you will "now" answer "5 questions (one at a time)" if you will not answer the questions that I have already asked you???

Is there now a "limit" on the number of questions that I can ask you???

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

Kevin

Re: Email 15 reply

Kevin,

Please don't write back, I don't have time to waste on those who hold those nose up at other believers. Luke 18:9-14 was written just for you and your kind. Your self righteousness will get you nowhere with me or with Jesus.

Repent, for your time may be short!

Brian

PS The ORIGINAL question was ME asking YOU to defend your position that you can judge another man's heart by saying that you know when someone is IN Christ or NOT. You have refused to back up your claims because you CANNOT. I have made 5 or 6 attempts at trying to get you to answer one simple question, and over and over you have evaded. Any e-mails from you that do not answer that one simple question will be discarded.

Now, if you would like to continue this dialog, stop disecting my e-mails and simply answer this one simple question (if you do not, then we will both know why):

I heard, I believed, I confessed, I repented, I was baptized (immersed) in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Why then do you claim that I am not "In Jesus?"

Re: Email 15 reply

I did not bother to respond to his last email...

As you can see readers, Brian had no intention of ever answering my emails...

His responses were to either call me names, tell me to "grow up" and call me "self righteous"...

God admonishes us in Matthew 7:6, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Maybe I continued the conversation for too long however, I leave that to you the readers to judge...

Brian will have to answer to Jesus for his actions...
"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:14).

Kevin