The Day of Redemption

DAY OF REDEMPTION:

Easily identified as the day that Christ redeems and saves the physical bodies of the Church which is His Body at the rapture. The "blessed hope" where our vile body is changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body (Phil. 3:20-21, 1 Cor. 15:51-58, 1 Thes. 4:13-18, Col. 3:1-4, Titus 2:13). This "day of redemption" was a "mystery" given to Paul by the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 4:1, 15:51, 1 Thes. 4:15).


It is a "mystery" conclusion for the ending of the "mystery" period of time in which Israel has been blinded until God is through pouring out His goodness and blessing on the Gentiles "under grace" in the "day of salvation" in which we are ambassadors (Rom. 11:25, Eph. 3:1-9, 1 Cor. 4:1, Rom. 6:14, 2 Cor. 5:14-6:2).


The day itself is always described as a blessed event for believers in which they are to be “looking for” constantly (Titus 2:13). This day is “at hand” (Rom. 13:11-12. Phil. 4:5) and will happen “shortly” (Rom. 16:20). Presently here on earth believers are constantly giving into the “old man” and not walking in the Spirit, it is a constant battle (Gal. 5:16-25, Col. 3:1-13). This grieves the Holy Spirit that we have been sealed with unto the day of redemption, but the rapture delivers us from our vile body and we will receive a new one like unto Christ's (1 Cor. 15:51-58, Phil. 3:20-21). The rapture is when we get complete victory over the flesh. We will then have no more sin nature. Likewise the rapture is also a complete victory of Satan. Presently here on earth we give into “doctrines of devils” and “seducing spirits” (1 Tim. 4:1). We are constantly confronted with the deception of the “prince of the power of the air”, “the god of this world”, the “prince of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, Eph. 2:2, 6:11-13). Satan is a lot smarter than us and is deception is powerful. However, at the rapture we are changed to be like Christ and can never be given to satanic deception again (Rom. 16:20)! That is why Christ's coming for the Church is said to be “bruising” Satan “under” our “feet”. Right now the Devil is the “prince of the power of the air” in “high places” sending down his “fiery darts” (Eph. 6:16), but at the rapture we go to heaven ABOVE Satan never to be bothered by his deception again (Phil 3:20-21).


The only condition there is to become a partaker in this event is to believe the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), that Christ died for our sins (was buried) and rose again the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-4, 1 Thes. 4:13-14). This guaruntees anyone and everyone a seat in heaven at the rapture (Eph. 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor. 1:22).


What is the timing of the day of redemption? It is before the wrath of God on the world begins (1 Thes. 1:10, 5:9, Rom. 5:9). God first begins to release His wrath when He opens the first seal in Revelation 6:1-2 sending out the antichrist to deceive unbelievers into accepting the satanic system of Babylon (2 Thess. 2:10-12). This is referred to as God sending out a “strong delusion” so that people will “believe a lie” in order that they be “damned”.


Dispensational Note: The “day of redemption” is clearly distinct from the rapture of the Jews in the Tribulation (“Time of Jacob's Trouble”). Saints under grace in the day of salvation do not have to be watching for Christ's coming (1 Thes. 5:9), we will live with Christ whether we wake or sleep. But in the “great tribulation” the Jewish saints under the gospel of the kingdom and Law will have to be separated from the sins of Babylon and continually look for Christ's coming—if not, they go to hell with the sinners they are accompanying (Matt. 3:7-10, 16:24-27, 24:42-51, 25:1-30, etc.). In the Tribulation salvation is conditioned on being a profitable servant. This is not true in the day of redemption for the Body of Christ, we are sealed with the Spirit until our body is redeemed. 
 
Compare what Paul said about the Body of Christ
“But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.” (1 Thes. 5:8-10)


....with what Christ said to the Jewish believers of the gospel of the kingdom


“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 24:37-51)

Scriptures to study:


Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.


Romans 8:23-24 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?


1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.


Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.


Philippians 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.


Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.


1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Manuscript Evidence for commonly disputed verses in the King James Bible.

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK

Support for the reading:

A (5^th century)

C (5^th century)

D (5^th century)

Theta (9^th century)

X (5^th -9^th century)

D (5^th -9^th century)

Q (5^th -9^th century)

P (5^th -9^th century)

137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, 1582, 2427, Vulgate, Old Latin, Syrus Curetonianus, Syriac Peshitta, Syrus Harklensis, Bohairic,



It is cited by: Justin (165 AD), Irenaeus (177 AD) Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) Augustine (430 AD).



Support against the reading:
Aleph (4th century)
B (4th century),
304 (12th century),
Latin k (4th/5th century),
Syrus Sinaiticus
A Sahidic manuscript,
Armenian manuscripts

FIRST JOHN 5:7

Greek evidence:

629 (14th century)

61 (16th century)

918 (16th century)

2473 (17th century)

2318 (18th century)

221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)

635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)

429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)

636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)

177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

Out of 480 extant Greek manuscripts containing 1 John chapter 5, only 12 of them are from before the 10^th century.

Vulgate evidence:

“The line, however, between Vulgate and Old Latin manuscripts are blurred because scribes often incorporated Old Latin readings into the Vulgate. While textual critics believe that Jerome did not include the Comma in the original Vulgate text, the Comma entered the Vulgate over time. 19th century textual critic F.H.A. Scrivener estimated that "49 out of 50 [Vulgate] manuscripts testify to this disputed Comma" (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p. 403). The Clementine Edition of the Vulgate, published in 1592, sought to standardize the Vulgate text, and it includes the Comma. There were other revisions of the Vulgate in the 16th century, such as those of the Complutensian Polyglot and Erasmus, which even consulted Greek manuscripts.

Since the Comma was never officially included in the Vulgate until the 16th century, the inclusion of the Comma in Vulgate manuscripts throughout the centuries is a result of several independent scribal transcriptions based on Old Latin manuscripts. Thus the Vulgate support for the Comma indirectly counts as Old Latin support for the Comma, although we can never truly know to what extent. In any event, the Vulgate can be a reliable witness for authentic readings. For example, the Vulgate preserved the reading, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father" at 1 John 2:23 even while the Byzantine Majority Text failed to preserve it. This reading in the Vulgate, which is also the reading in the KJV, was confirmed as an early reading based on the discovery of early uncials which have it, such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If what the Latin preserved at 1 John 2:23 is more accurate than the majority of Greek manuscripts, then what the Latin preserved at 1 John 5:7 could also be more accurate than the majority of Greek manuscripts.” (from KJV Today.com)

Old Latin evidence:

• Palimpset of Leon Cathedral (7th century)
  
• Fragment of Freising (7th century)
  
• Codex Cavensis (9th century)
  
• Codex Complutensis (10th century)
  
• Codex Toletanus (10th century)
  
• Codex Theodulphianus (8th or 9th century)
  
• Some Sangallense MSS (8th or 9th century)

It is quoted by Tertullian (215 AD), Cyprian (250 AD), Phoebadius (350 AD), Priscillian (350 AD), Augustine (410 AD), Vigilius Tapsensis (450 AD), Victor Vitensis (486 AD), Fulgentius Respensis (527 AD), Cassidorius (583 AD).

ACTS 8:37

(From Mr. Will Kinney—http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts83724682829.htm)

The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1633 and Scrivener 1894. It is in manuscripts E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others.

It is also the reading found in Old Latin manuscripts from the textline that predates any Greek manuscripts, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r, t, w. Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, the Coptic Middle Egyptian version, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine.



Early church fathers who witness to it's being a part of inspired Scripture and quoted or referred to Acts 8:37 are Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chromatius, Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian 310-391 A.D., Ambrose 340-397 A.D., Augustine and Theophylact.



Many church fathers who lived before anything we have in the way of Greek copies directly quote this verse, including Irenaeus 178 A.D., Tertullian 220, Cyprian died in 258, as well as Ambrosiaster 384, Ambrose 397, Augustine 430, and Venerable Bede of England in 735.



For example, Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) supports the inclusion of verse 36-37 Textus Receptus when he says, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian )



Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12: "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God."

Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49: "The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water."

SOME QUESTIONS FOR KING JAMES FANS By Dr. John R. Rice (heretic)

Here is a review of an article written many years ago by a heretic named John R. Rice (long deceased). I have inserted my comments in black font.

SOME QUESTIONS FOR KING JAMES FANS
By Dr. John R. Rice

We love the King James Bible. We use it in all our sermons, our books and pamphlets published in millions of copies, in the weekly SWORD OF THE LORD. We recommend it as best for daily use. We have memorized some thirty chapters and thousands of other verses in it. We have large commentaries on Genesis, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Corinthians and Revelation: all based on the King James text. We have written comments on every chapter in the Bible and almost every principle verse in five years of work, all in the King James Version. My Reference Bible now in preparation by Thomas Nelson Publishers uses the text of the King James Version. So I am a friend of the King James Version. I have probably done more to promote the King James Bible than anyone else in America in many years.

[Ol' John Rice spends his first paragraph trying to butter up the audience into making them think that he is not really attacking the King James Bible because he "loves" it and "uses" it because it is his "friend". What a joke! Answer me this: if you had a "friend", that you "loved" and "used", would you right an article about them in your newsletter explaining what you believe are FAULTS with that friend? Of course not. Rice was just trying to excuse himself for USING the Bible without BELIEVING it.]

But there are people who fanatically insist that the King James Version was perfectly translated with no errors; if there is a single error in the translation we have no trustworthy Bible. They say God is obligated to have such a perfectly translated Bible which is exactly true to every word of the original autographs. They are wrong, foolishly and perhaps ignorantly wrong, and they are often guilty of railing and unchristian talk and foolish, slanderous statements. Now I shall ask all of these to answer some honest questions.

[I am one of those "fanatics". Ol' Johnny forgot to mention that he does not believe that ANY English version nor ANY Hebrew/Greek text or manuscript is infallible (see Dr. Rice Here Is My Question and his book on Inspiration of Scripture). Dr. Rice denies the doctrine of INSPIRED-PRESERVATION as found throughout the Bible in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. The promise of preservation is found in all of those scriptures and it said that GOD is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:7). Rice did not even mention those FACTS. He just gave us a bunch of flim-flam about nothing and hoped we would go along with him. That is #1 sign of the Scholarship Onlyism that the Alexandrian Cult is infected with.]

You need not write to argue with me about it unless you answer these questions. If you don't face these questions honestly, then I am not interested in discussing the matter with you, of course. 

[Of course we will answer the questions (1 Thes. 5:21, 1 Pet. 3:15), but Rice never did answer the charges against him by Bible believers. (you should obtain a copy of Dear Dr. Rice, Where is My Bible? by Dr. Herb Evans)]

1. What accepted Bible commentary, what statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version is without error in translation?

[What the heck is an "accepted Bible commentary" and what do these questions have to do with anything? Back in John R. Rices day they did not have internet, but nowadays you can look up KJB believing church directories per state. For example: http://biblebelievers.com/churches/ ] 

There is not one such commentary or statement of faith or statement by a reliable authority that the King James Version is without an error in translation. Not one in the world!

[Who the heck decided which commentaries of statements of faith were "reliable authorites". Surely not Dr. Rice? Are you the judge in such matters? I thought a reliable statement of faith was one that lined up with the BIBLE? Try the commentaries published by Bible Baptist Book Store, Daystar Publishing, Discerning Times Publishing, and a dozen others.]

I have a tract before me by Brother E. L. Bynum of Lubbock which claims to be "a resume of Dr. Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?" I have that book also before me. The tract says, "We as evangelicals believe that Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant -- namely without error. THEN -- we ask, is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages."

In the first place, that statement, claiming to be a resume of the statement of Dr. Otis Fuller in the book, Which Bible? is not correct. It misquotes this good man. Dr. Fuller overstates the case in his book, Which Bible? and is somewhat accountable for all the radicals who rush into controversy on this subject. But he plainly says on page 33, about the translators of the King James Version, "No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship . . . . "

[So now Fuller is the authority? Come come good Doctor, where is "all authority" as spoken of in Titus 2:15? Is it you? Fuller? WHO? Can it be found in a book (Bible) right now? Can it be put in my hand? Fuller was a Textus Receptus man at the time he wrote Which Bible? but later (after writing his other books) became a KJB man. And by the way, nobody ever said that the AV 1611 translators were infallible. Just like we never said that Moses, David, Paul, or Peter were infallible. They were all instruments that GOD used to do the preserving (Ps. 12:7). ]

All right, the translators of the King James Version were men of outstanding scholarship and quality and character. But "no reasonable person," says Dr. Fuller, would say what Brother Bynum quotes him as saying. And we think it is almost blasphemous to say that if God didn't guarantee every word translated in the King James Version to be correct, then He is "either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages." God could have preserved all the original manuscripts, but did not. God is not either "careless or impotent" if He does not do just as some extremist or radical demands.

[Another sign of Scholarship Onlyism, gassing about quotes and books rather than the Scriptures alone.]

Again the question, and do not write me on this matter (and I hope you will never say a word to anyone else on the matter) without answering this question honestly: What authorities, commentaries, statements of faith of widely accepted Christian leaders say "that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect"? That is not sensible and it isn't true.

[Ah ha! The great fundamentalist, the great soul winner, the great defender of the faith, JOHN R. RICE refers to non-scripture writings as "AUTHORITIES". He was a polytheist of the worst sort. John Rice did not count the scriptures as "all authority"l (Titus 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Instead, he believed in MUTIPLE NON SCRIPTURAL "AUTHORITIES". Which is why John R. Rice has been correctly called by Dr. Peter Ruckman "the biggest Bible blockhead that ever lived". Amen and amen!]

2. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct?

[ Dr. Rice denies the doctrine of INSPIRED-PRESERVATION as found throughout the Bible in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. The promise of preservation is found in all of those scriptures and it said that GOD is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:7). Answer me this: where in the Bible does God guarantee that any book outside of the Bible would be considered an "authority"? HUH?] 

There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives. But unless you can answer this question, don't write me about it, nor approach anybody else about it.

[No scripture? Ricce must have never read his Bible: Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.]

3. If the King James Version is the only perfectly translated Version, without errors, in the English language, then what about the Bishop Bible and the others that it superseded in the English language?

[They were close (better than your ASV, they were almost identical to the KJB), but were not yet pure. What do old English translations have to do with anything?]

If God was under obligation to make a perfect translation of the King James Version, in 1611, then you mean God was either unwilling or unable to guarantee the translation before the King James Version, before 1611? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?

[I did not say that nobody before 1611 had a perfect Bible. But even if I had said that, that still wouldn't be as bad as what Rice is saying. Rice slanders KJB believers of denying the world a perfect Bible until 1611, but Rice is denying the world a perfect Bible FOREVER. ("But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth..." (Gal. 4:4)]

4. If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also?

[I never said that God was "obligated" to do anything. I just gave the scriptures on perfect preservation. But I'm glad you brought this up, because GOD did say that He wants His word to go to all nations (Rom. 16:26).]

The doctrine won't stand unless it stands for every language where the Bible is translated. Of 

course, that doctrine is not in the Bible. Men made that up. God's Word is "for ever settled in heaven." That is true. And we have God's Word in the King James translation, well translated and reliable and trustworthy, but God did not guarantee there would be no mistakes by the translator.

[Rice just called the KJB the "Word" of God, but then said it had mistakes in it! What a heretic! The qualifications for the word of God is that it is PURE (Ps. 12:6) and true from the beginning (Ps. 119:160). It must be TRUTH to qualify as the word of God (John 17:17).]

Now face this: if you claim God is under obligation to have a perfect translation available for us who speak English, He is under obligation to have a perfect translation for others. Does He or not? Do you claim the same for Germany? for France? Japan? What are those translations? Please don't write to argue with me about this unless you answer this question honestly.

[Yes God wants His word to go to all nations. Which is another reason why the English 1611 is infallible. It makes sense that God would use a very world wide used language such as ENGLISH. ("...the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26)]

5. What about the translation in Acts 12:4 that Herod was "intending after Easter to bring him [Peter] forth to the people."

And the Greek word in Acts 12:4 in all the Greek texts is "Passover" instead of "Easter." There was no "Easter" then, not in the received text or any other. This church celebration which varies a month or more from time to time had not been taken from the heathen religions and made into a Catholic festival then, and the word was not even in existence when that was written in Greek!

[Rice simply does not know what he is talking about. No Greek Text says "passover" in Acts 12:4. They all say "pascha". Pascha has historically been used by Greeks to mean BOTH "passover" and "easter". There is no Greek word for Easter other than pascha! The Greek word Pascha means Easter. Check ant Greek source. Buy an Oxford Greek Dictionary, a Greek Easter card, or go to Google Translate.com . Rice when it comes to knowledge about Easter/Passover/Pascha, John R. Rice didn't have a clue.]

Now, is it no mistake to say "Easter" when God said "Passover"? Is that perfect? [God did not "passover", He said "pascha" which means EASTER primarily in Greek. Even Luther translated "pascha" as "ostern" throughout his entire German Bible.]

6. Again, in Revelation 22:14 the King James Version teaches that one is to be saved and go to Heaven because they "do his commandments."

It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." In that the translation is not correct and that is not really what the Greek says in the original manuscript. The true Bible does not really teach salvation by keeping commandments. In that case it Erasmus, who selected and collected the Greek Received Text, had it that way he was mistaken. I think the correct translation is, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city, as it is given in the American Standard Version. But I know that to teach salvation by keeping commandments is contrary to Scripture as truly translated. [The KJB is correct as salvation in the Tribulation is by faith+works as proved dozens of times on this blog.]

7. One great edition of the King James Version of the Bible left out the word "not" in the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and had it, "Thou shalt commit adultery."

Did God protect that version from error? In the first hundred years the King James Version has had many corrections and revisions. If it was right before, it did not need the corrections. If it is perfect now, then it was not perfect then.

[God used the translators to preserve His inspired words, He did not lead/guide the printing press. And there have been no revisions in the KJB as far as translation is concerned, only changes in spelling and printers errors.]

Why Cannot Fans and Extremists About the King James Version Be Good Christians Also? 

[John R. Rice just said that anyone who is a "fan" of the KJV "cannot" be a good christian. Ain't he something?]

It is a sad thing that those in some heresy often err greatly in matters of righteousness also. They write mean letters; they make slanderous charges; they ignorantly jump to conclusions about people; they have suspicions and innuendoes. No, if a man is a good enough Christian to be right on the matter of inspiration, he ought to be a good enough Christian to control his tongue. The Bible says plainly:

"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." -- Prov. 22:24, 25.

[Tell it to the cussing/swearing/cursing anti-KJB fellow named BOB ROSS. John R. Rice pretends that all KJB fans are rude/crude and that anyone who is not a KJB fan is not like that. I know plenty of people that are NOT King James Bible fans that are RUDE also. This proves nothing.]

And again 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us we are not to eat with "a railer" any more than with fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, etc. So we invite letters provided you write like a Christian, provided you work for fellowship and truth instead of slander and abuse.

[Says the guy that uses a Book he doesn't believe, refers to non scripture as "authorities", and says that anyone who is a fan of the KJV is not a good christian. You is preachn' to yo'self Doctuh' Rice.]

One missionary who gets out a tract on this matter used my picture illustration on its cover for which I paid a Christian artist in Glen Ellyn, Illinois to draw for my pamphlet on Verbal Inspiration. Don't you think one who makes a great to-do about the Bible should be ethical and Christian? When one is a railer, a slanderer, or otherwise does not act or speak or write as a good Christian his doctrine is likely to be carelessly or ignorantly wrong, as in this matter.

[Sure.]

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Review of a COC vs MAD debate on Youtube

There was a debate out in Colorado between the Church of Christ evangelist and a so called "Mid-Acts Dispensationalist" named Bob Enyart. The so called "Mid-Acts Dispensationalist" clearly had no idea what he was doing.

Here is the link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoFHahT5lzc

I may have missed it, but I didn't recall Bob Enyart ever even giving the gospel of the grace of God, 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. That Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. There was a lot of talk about believing on Jesus and believe that He was the Son of God, but that is not the gospel of the grace of God (1 Cor. 1, 2, 15, Rom 3-5, Col. 1:14, etc.). The Deity of Christ and His finished work is the gospel. The Deity of Christ is only half of it (Rom. 1:1-4).

Bob Enyart also appears to believe in drinking alcohol (see his website), which is utter nonsense (Prov. 23:29-24).

Also, Bob Enyart would not answer Erhardt's 2 points:

#1 Peter and Paul preached the same faith (Gal. 1:23)

#2 Peter and Paul preached the same way (Acts 9:2 with Acts 19:9)

Neither of those points accurately represent Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. We believe that the Christian faith and Jesus being the way are TRANSDISPENSATIONAL i.e. always true no matter if you are living under the Gospel of the Kingdom in the Tribulation of living under the Gospel of the Grace of God under grace.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Those truths are true in any dispensation, Erhardt's points are not real points at all. They were simply "zingers".

Bob Enyart also didn't answer Erhardt on Galatians 2:8. Erhardt insisted that the interpretation of the verse was that the "gospel of the circumcision" and the "gospel of the uncircumcision" were the same gospel aimed at different audiences. In other words, Ehardt says that the audience is what is different, not the gospel that was preached. That is obviously wrong. If you just compare Peter's sending with Paul's sending you will know that they had different gospels.

Peter's sending:

Mark 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

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

Acts 2:37-38 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Paul's sending:

Acts 26:
[15] And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
[16] But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
[17] Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
[18] To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

1 Corinthians 1:
[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
[19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
[20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
[21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

If those aren't two different sendings and gospels, then I don't know what is. Peter was sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the world (Matt. 24:14): he that believed and was baptized would be saved. Paul was was sent not to baptize but to testify of the Gospel of the Grace of God (1 Cor. 1:17, Acts 20:24).

If that doesn't prove they had different gospels, how about Acts 2:37-39 compared with Acts 16:30-31?

Acts 2:37-38 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

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

Now about Galatians 2:8, which Erhardt said was an issue of audience and not content. LOOK AT THE CONTEXT!

Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:
[1] Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
[2] And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
[3] But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
[8] (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Erhardt was too spiritually blinded to look at the context and Enyart was to dumb to read the context. (too put it rudely 2 Cor. 11:6)

Other failures of the debate on Enyart's part were these:

1.) He did not give the gospel of the grace of God.

2.) He did not use the infallible word of God, the King James Bible. He messed around with an ESV, NKJV, and some Greek googly gook.

3.) Failure to mention ALL the requirements of the Gospel of the Kingdom such as good morals, enduring to the end, and selling all.

4.) Failure to mention Acts 1:6, and 3:19-26 where Peter offered the Kingdom to Israel and told them that their sins would not be blotted out UNTIL THE SECOND ADVENT.

5.) Failure to look at 2 Peter 3:15 where Peter admits that Paul had special revelation that was hard to be understood. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

6.) Failure to start off with a Premillennium-vs-Amillennium. Naturally the COC are not going to put a distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God--they don't even believe there will be a kingdom!

As for Erhardt, he did a good job as one of Satan's ministers trying to deceive people with a false gospel (2 Cor. 11:15).

Erhardt claimed that Cornelius in Acts 10 was saved when he got water baptized and that the baptism with the Holy Ghost did not save him. That is clearly wrong.

Acts 10:
[43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
[44] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
[47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 15:
[7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
[8] And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
[9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
[11] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Okay. Was Cornelius saved by grace through faith alone without works at the moment he received the Holy Ghost? Yes!

1.) Cornelius received the Holy Ghost, which means he was out of the flesh and saved (Rom. 8:1-9).

2.) Cornelius was led by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, which means he was a son of God (Rom. 8:14).

3.) Cornelius was no longer in the world (spiritually), because the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost (John 14:17).

4.) Cornelius magnified God, therefore he was saved and our of the flesh (Rom. 8:8).

Erhardt missed every one of those points. (shame on Enyart for not bringing them up!)

I emailed Mr. Erhardt after someone sent me the debate and challenged him on these issues. He replied

" I recommend that you visit www.SouthEndchurchofChrist.com and view the video sermon I preached on baptism. It is on the homepage. Get back with me after you see it. I will respond to any questions, clarifications, challenges, etc. at that time."

He corresponded a little bit and gave me the classic COC hop-scotch through Mark 16, Acts 2, Rom. 6, Gal. 3, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc. but never answered ONE of my points. (even though he said he would answer "ANY" challenges. 

Pray for Mr. Erhardt that he will believe the gospel and trust Christ rather than attempt to establish his own righteousness (Rom. 10:1-4).

--Eli Caldwell

Correspondence--between Hoss and a COC evangelist (Part 2)

Here is my correspondence with a COC evangelist. The blue font is the "Church of Christ" and the black arial is my response. --Eli Caldwell

Hello again,

   The baptism of the Great Commission is "into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Therefore, you should not be disturbed that Grider and other gospel preachers do that. "By one Spirit we were baptized" in 1 Corinthians 12:13 simply means "by the influence or guidance of the Spirit" (see v. 3).

____________________________________________________________

It looks like you just combined "baptism into Christ" with "baptism with water". I take it that it is your position that being baptized into water is the same thing as being baptized into Christ. However, that is scripturally wrong as well as illogical. Is Christ a tank of water? No. Then baptism into water cannot be baptism into Christ. There is no verse in the Bible that says water baptism is "into Christ". It is always said to be "with water". You cited verses on baptism into Christ and matched them with water baptism without proving from the Bible that they are the same. That is dangerous ground.

I can easily prove that baptism into Christ is not water baptism.

Reason #1: God-given common sense. Christ is not a tank of water or a river, therefore baptism into water cannot be baptism into Christ.

Reason #2: 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 18 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit....But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." It is abundantly clear from the Bible that baptism into Christ is done "by one Spirit" and that God sets the members in the body. And again, in Colossians 2:12, baptism into Christ is "through the faith of the operation of God". Baptism into Christ is an operation of God by the Holy Spirit. That is what the Bible says. You stated ""By one Spirit we were baptized" in 1 Corinthians 12:13 simply means "by the influence or guidance of the Spirit"", but that is not what the Bible says. What it SAYS is that God set the members into Christ according to verse 18.

Reason #3: Water baptism is an operation of man. In reference to John, the Bible says "And were baptized of him in Jordan", "come to his baptism", "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance", and "to be baptized of him" (Matt. 3:6-13). Water baptism is not "by one Spirit" or an "operation of God", it is an operation of man.

You have verses that say that baptism into Christ is the same thing as being baptized into water, please give them. And I don't mean match a verse on water baptism and post it beside a verse on baptism into Christ. I mean specifically show from Romans 6, Galatians 3, 1 Corinthians 12, etc. that the baptism into Christ is actually baptism into water. OR specifically show from Matthew 3, John 4, etc. that water baptism is "into Christ''.

____________________________________________________________

  

   The "washing of regeneration" in Titus 3:5 is clearly water baptism. Other translations say "water of rebirth" (NRSV), "bath of regeneration" (Goodspeed), etc. It is exactly what Ananias had in mind when he told Saul of Tarsus to "rise..and wash" in baptism (Acts 22:16).

____________________________________________________________

How is the washing of regeneration "clearly" water baptism when it is said to be a washing of REGENERATION and not water? How is it "clearly" water baptism when it is said to be by "the Holy Ghost" and not by man or water? are the words "water", "river", "Jordan", etc. even found in the entire book of Titus? Nowhere. And in 1 Corinthians 6:11 the washing is clearly said to be "by the Spirit of our God". I assume the only reason you even make this claim is because the word "washed" is used and it reminds you of water?

Showing the readings in other translations will not persuade me. I have many translations such as the 1599 Geneva, 1545 Luther, reproduction 1611 KJB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, RSV, and a few others. I have also read many books on manuscript evidence and different translations. In light of comparing the different versions and reading the manuscript evidence, I am fully persuaded that the King James Bible is the infallible word of God. This is sometime called "King James Onlyism". 

You said on you baptism video that the word of God was perfect, and that is what I believe also. Which means that means I cannot accept a book that contradicts the KJB.

Just a note: the NRSV is a very liberal translation and is not as literal as the KJB. It is also not supported by very many manuscripts. Most modern versions are translated from the Catholic Vatican manuscripts, Vaticanus and Siniaticus. These two manuscripts contradict each other 7,000 times, they add OT apocrypha and NT apocrypha, they omit thousands of words (NIV--64,000), and as you know they omit the last 12 verses of Mark. (Vaticanus also omits the pastoral epistles and Revelation I believe)

I recommend that you read the books on manuscript evidence and the bible versions by Dr. Peter Ruckman, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. DA Waite, Dr. Jack Moorman, as well as David Daniels and Laurence Vance.   

Since you said that you believed the Bible was perfect, which Bible did you mean?

 ___________________________________________________________

    Cornelius was not baptized in the Holy Spirit to be saved. The text never says that. In fact, Peter told us exactly why Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:8 -- to bear witness to Jews that uncircumcised Gentiles could be saved. You are confusing Holy Spirit baptism with other acts of the Spirit. Did you know that there are only two recorded cases of Holy Spirit baptism in the NT? It was never commanded for all people, nor did those who receive it ever encourage others to do the same. We are "led by the Spirit" as we follow His revealed teachings in Scripture. It is not a supernatural overwhelming or immersion.

____________________________________________________________

The term "baptized in the Holy Spirit" is not in the Bible. As you know, there are at least 6-7 baptisms in the Bible.

1.) Baptism "with water" (Matt. 3:6-13, Mark 16:16, etc.)

2.) Baptism "with the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 3:11, Acts 2)

3.) Baptism "with fire" (Matt. 3:10-12)

4.) Baptism in death/suffering (Matt. 20:22-23, Mark. 10:38-39, Luke 12:50)

5.) Baptism "unto Moses" (1 Cor. 10:1-2)

6.) Baptism "into Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12-18, Gal. 3:26-28, Eph. 4:1-6, etc.)

Not one of those is baptism "in the Holy Spirit". The text never says that.

Now about the Cornelius case. I agree that baptism with the Holy Ghost is not a command. However, it is only for saved people which I can prove easily.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Romans 8:8-9 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The world cannot receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore Cornelius had to have been saved in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

They that are in the flesh (out of the Spirit) CANNOT please God, but Cornelius magnified God (Acts 10:46).

The Holy Ghost led Cornelius and the Gentiles to speak with tongues (Acts 10:46), they were sons of God.

This is also a good note to add to you comments on 1 Cor. 12:13. Even IF what you say is true, that baptism into Christ is actually baptism into water, then that would prove that people are saved before water baptism. Because anyone that is led or guided by the Holy Spirit is a son of God, the world cannot receive Him (Rom. 8:14, John 14:16-17, 16:13).

You said, "Cornelius was not baptized in the Holy Spirit to be saved. The text never says that. In fact, Peter told us exactly why Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:8 -- to bear witness to Jews that uncircumcised Gentiles could be saved." However, you are not giving the full story.

This is what Acts 15:7-9 says,

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

The pouring out of the Holy Ghost did bare the Gentiles witness, but this baptism with the Holy Ghost DID save Cornelius and that is what the text says. "...God....giving them the Holy Ghost....purifying their hearts".  God gave the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles upon the hearing of faith and that purified their hearts. That is exactly what Paul teaches (Eph. 1:13, Gal. 3:1-3).

____________________________________________________________

    Christ revealed the truth directly to Paul. There is no question about that. And the reason Paul puts so much emphasis on that fact is because critics were challenging his authority. However, nowhere does he ever suggest that his revelation was contrary to that of Peter, James, and John. MAD advocates make a distinction where God never did. Paul preached what Peter preached (Gal. 1:23).

____________________________________________________________

The scriptures do suggest that Paul preached a revelation contrary than that given to Peter. Peter himself said that what Paul wrote was hard to be understood.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Obviously Paul and Peter preached the same faith in Christ and Christ being the way (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). That is not the issue. The point of MAD is that Christ gave different teaching to Paul according to the revelation of the mystery that had been hid in God (Eph. 3:1-9). 

The faith that Paul destroyed was Christ, that He was the Son of God. That is the gospel of God (Rom. 1:1-7) that both Peter and Paul preached.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 9:20-21 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

Galatians 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

However, Paul and Peter obviously preached different gospels of salvation. Peter plainly stated that works of righteousness were required for salvation (Acts 10:35) and Paul plainly said that they were not (Titus 3:5). Peter plainly taught that water baptism and laying on of hands by the apostles was required to receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17) while Paul plainly taught that you receive the Holy Spirit through the hearing of faith (Eph. 1:13, Gal. 3:1-3). Peter was plainly sent to baptize (Matt. 28:19, John 4:2) but Paul was plainly sent not to baptize (1 Cor. 1:17). Peter taught that you should sell all that you have for salvation and not lay up money on earth (Matt. 6:19-34, 19:16-24, Mark 6:7-9, 10:17-23, Luke 9:1-4, 12:15-34, Acts 2:44-45, 3:1-6, 4:32-37, 5:1-11) while Paul taught that you can lay up (2 Thes. 3:7-12, Eph. 4:28, 1 Cor. 16:2, 2 Cor. 9:6-7, 12:14).

Mr. Erhardt, when the scriptures seemingly contradict you must "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible will not make sense if Peter and Paul are suppose to have taught the same plans of salvation.

____________________________________________________________

    The sharing of the early saints was to meet a need. We still meet needs today in churches of Christ. However, they retained their own homes, possessions, etc. For instance, Peter went to the "house of Mary" in Acts 12:12. Philemon not only "owned" his own house, which was large enough for the church to meet, but "owned" slaves. I sure hope you're not suggesting that Christians are commanded to sell their stuff to be saved? When there is a need, we meet that need.

____________________________________________________________

Your very first sentence is contrary to what Jesus said. I suppose that is why you didn't give a scripture reference with it.

Jesus said that it was Gentiles (heathens) that gave thought for the next day and laid up treasure. He promised that those who forsook all and followed him, God would provide for them. Those who did not do this were not serving God and had little faith (Matt. 6:19-34). Do you have a savings account or retirement plan? Why? Jesus said not to give any thought for those things. Do you really follow Jesus's earthly ministry and gospel of the kingdom?

Jesus said that selling all and giving to the poor was a requirement for having eternal life and following Him (Matt. 19:16-24). He said that a rich man will hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven and that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Have you sold all? Then you do not have eternal life and you are not a follower of Christ according to the gospel of the kingdom.

In Luke 9:1-4 and Matthew 10:5-10 Jesus told His disciples not to have money, food, or more than one coat. Do you have those things? Well then you don't follow the gospel of the kingdom that Peter preached. Peter did not have silver or gold (Acts 3:1-6).

Peter's converts followed this commandment (Acts 2:44-45, 3:1-6, 4:32-37, 5:1-11), why don't you? Anyone who does not follow those commandments is a "fool" according to God and He will require your soul (Luke 12:15-34).

I am not "suggesting" anything. I just told you what the Bible says. I have attached the scripture references for you to see for yourself.  

__________________________________________________________________________________________

    The designation "churches of Christ" is in the Bible (Rom. 16:16). It is also inferred in passages like Matthew 16:18, where Christ said, "I will build my church." Whose is it? The Baptist Church designation is as unscriptural as its plan of salvation, organizational structure, worship, work, etc. BTW, if I were inconsistent (and I am not), that still does not justify Baptist Church practices. As mom used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Can you find scriptural authority for the Baptist Church or not?

____________________________________________________________

Here are other designation that you missed

"churches of the Gentiles" (Rom. 16:4)

"churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. 16:1, Gal. 1:2)

"churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33)

"churches of Asia" (1 Cor. 16:19)

"churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16, 1 Thes. 2:14, 2 Thes. 1:4)

"churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1)

"churches of Judea" (Gal. 1:22)

There are no name designations for local churches in the Bible. Paul addresses local churches based on their location sometimes and sometimes he calls them a "church of God" simply because the local church he is referring to is made up of saved people in God. Ditto with "churches of Christ".

Any local church made up of saved people is a church of Christ/God. That is a spiritual standing, not a denomination title. Just like the term "man of God" is referring to a spiritually mature man (2 Tim. 2:17) that belongs to God. Though the man's name is not "Man of God".

The word "Baptist" is in the Bible, and it is in description of a man (John) that preached the name of Christ and baptized for the remission of sins. The word is biblical and has a biblical association with a certain message.

I do not profess to be a Baptist, I contend with them on the "sinner's prayer" salvation and water baptism, I just go to church with my parents. But my Baptist pastor is a MAD that does not teach the "sinner's prayer" and does not put a lot of emphasis on water baptism. (there are a handful of MAD Baptist churches, not many)

Would you prefer a church call itself "The Church of the Gentiles", "The Church of God", or "The Church of Asia"? Those are biblical "designations".

There is no authority given in the Bible to call a local church anything in particular. If a church is made up of saved people than it is a church of Christ/church of God. But if it is made up of people in Asia then it is also a "Church of Asia".

To say that a local church must be called "the church of Christ" and does not have the authority to be called anything else is like saying that a "man of God" has no right to go by the name Larry.

I believe that we should be silent where the Bible is silent and speak where the Bible speaks. The Bible says nothing about how to name your local assembly and so I do not really care much about that issue.

If someone took down your church sign that says "church of Christ" and put up one that said "church of Allah" would that change your church designation? No, if you and your church are saved people than y'all would still be a church of Christ no matter what some sign says.

Do you disagree with that?

Thank you, --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell