• About
  • BULLETIN ARTICLES

etsop95

~ Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

etsop95

Tag Archives: works

Ex-Church of Christ (2)

24 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, circumcision, ex-church of Christ, faith only, works

  1. Only people baptized in the Churches of Christ will be saved.

See here (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1176-the-truth-on-baptism-should-not-be-watered-down) and here for examples of this teaching.

If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.” –Romans 2

RT – Pay particular attention to the assertion/accusation. Now go to the web link and see if the author of the article anywhere says what is asserted. In fact, the author of the article simply lays out a case for biblical baptism. There was nothing pejorative in what was written. Moreover, the passage referenced in Romans 2 by the author of this web-article lifted the passage out of the context in which Paul was addressing his words. Paul was talking about the Jew who was a hypocrite; that is, he insisted on obedience to the Law of Moses, but refused to adhere to it himself (note this especially in 2:17-29). Baptism and circumcision are not the same. Baptism applies to both the male and female; circumcision applied only to the male. Baptism applies to the males and females of all nations; circumcision applied only to the Hebrew (a descendant of Abraham). Baptism applies to people who have come to hear and understand the message of God with a penitent heart; circumcision applied only to the male who understood nothing, but experienced pain.

No miracles to benefit self

03 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

benefit, miracles, signs, works

The Lord Jesus came to this earth to proclaim salvation to man, declaring the glory and mission of the Almighty (John 1:18). As He walked on this earth, it was His mission to teach the way of righteousness to those in bondage to sin. The Scriptures teach that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The consequence of this “falling short” is death, spiritual death (Romans 6:23). Since man has fallen short of God’s salvation, the only “bridge” to the Father is via Jesus. He is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6).

The mission and the message of Jesus was not readily received, however. He came unto those that were similar to Him with a message of God, but a great many were not interested in what He had to say; that is, they were intrigued, but not converted (cf. John 1:5-10). Though some responded that way, not all did. One such person was a great teacher among the rabbis; his name was Nicodemus. He came to the Lord Jesus in the night time hours, declaring to Him that no man can do the things He (Jesus) had done, unless God is with him (John 3:2). Nicodemus heard the words of the Lord, but it was the miraculous confirmation/authentication of that word spoken that said to him this man is from God.

Clearly, the authenticating signs (miraculous works) Jesus did was to convince people that what He spoke was not of human origin. “Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing” (John 2:23, NET). Jesus did not do this for Himself, or simply to bring attention to Himself as a man preaching; He did this for the sole purpose of “declaring God” (1:18).

The Gospel (or Book) of John is a good place to see why Jesus made use of the miraculous signs. It was not His intent to bring attention to Himself as a man, but to bring attention to Himself in the message He preached. There is a difference (John 5:30). Thus, slowly, prayerfully and with desire to please God, please read the Gospel of John.

Written for missionary Randal Matheny in the Southern Hemisphere

A Discussion Concerning My Post on 1 Peter 3:21

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, Baptist Church, faith only, salvation, works

This discussion is the result of a post I made on 1 Peter 3:21. The dates of our discussion correspond to the last of March and the early part of April 2016, on “Christian Discussions” on Facebook. You will note that the correspondence is direct in its tone; in my estimation, this is how it should be. I did not interpret anything that he said to me as uncharitable, disparaging, or unkind. I tried to respond in kind.  I hope you find this discussion helpful in your own studies.

*****

JG – If the Bible is the Word of God it cannot contradict itself. Therefore, salvation was always through Jesus’ substitutionary death, whether believers fully understood that or not in the Old Testament. God allowed them to have faith in the sacrifices, which were a figure of Christ, but they had to trust in a free salvation through the shed blood of a substitute. Salvation was always the same-free without works of any type.

If baptism is now required in the “new covenant” then there would be two ways of salvation, Old Testament and New Testament, which some do hold to. But a holy God cannot save anyone based on anything less than a perfect sacrifice, which is Christ. The thief on the cross, per the New Testament, died after Christ died, for they broke his legs so he would die before the sabbath. So the death of a testator inaugurates the testament/covenant (Hebrews).

The thief died under the New Covenant, which we are under. If Christ did not require baptism for him, then God can save without baptism. But God cannot save without Christ’s death for sins. Baptism signifies and testifies to our salvation. Yes the phrase in Peter is “baptism doth now save us”. But again, interpretation always depends on context. The Bible commentaries are trying to understand the phrase in the total context of the New Testament. Let’s look at John. The purpose of the Gospel of John was to help readers be saved. Now remember when the Bible was written it was not yet compiled into one book. So some Christians would only have the Gospel of John. In that book is what we need to be saved. No where does baptism appear as a part of salvation (John 3 “water” is not baptism. Nicodemus, a Jew, would not have taken Christ’s words to refer to this Christian rite. In context, then, how would Nicodemus take it? Either as physical birth: we must be born physically AND spiritually, born of the flesh and spirit, or he may have taken it to refer to the Word of God). In Bible days, if you meant business, you would be baptized. It was a given. It was always closely associated with salvation, though not the basis for it. Hence one might say, “I was saved and baptized last Tuesday” or “I was baptized and became saved last Tuesday” but not meaning the baptism saved. Only they would not mentally even consider a salvation that did not immediately involve baptism. Ephesians 2:8-9 notice we are saved “BY” grace, “THROUGH” faith. Faith does not give God the authority or ability to save us. It is only the means to receive the gift. The death of Christ (source of grace) gives God the authority and ability to save. The BASIS of our salvation is Christ’s work, not our faith, not our believing, not our works of any kind. God cannot save sinners if Christ did not die. God would sin Himself if He did. He cannot forgive sin. He forgives us only because the death of Christ met the law’s demands against us. He requires faith I suppose so we are not robots – so we will reach out and take the gift. But my faith is itself imperfect and sinful, and cannot be a BASIS for God to save me. Same for everything else I do.

RT – The perfect sacrifice is Jesus. The Lord’s requirement of baptism is not “two ways of salvation.” This is a failure to understand the comprehensive nature of what it means to be justified by faith. The thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant, as demonstrated in the piece that I wrote, because the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Acts 2, a number of weeks after the thief died. Yes, the death of the one who made the will inaugurates the new will, but not until the appointed time of that document being discharged. Jesus did not address baptism in any way at all with the thief, and the passage is a proof-text for faith only advocates. Yes, interpretation does depend on context, and the expositors understood well the context. The words “signifies” or “testifies” are not in the verse of 1 Peter 3:21, or John 3:3-5; it is inserted based on theology, not exegesis. Of course, we know that “water” is not water in John 3, but is some figurative word/expression of something else. Perhaps it means buttermilk! There is absolutely no reason to interpret “water” in any other way than in its normal meaning. The only reason this is not done is because faith only advocates stumble atf the obvious meaning of the passage. On what hermeneutical basis will you say it does not mean buttermilk? John wrote some time after Nicodemus was dead and gone, but for the sake of discussion, let me grant that Nicodemus would not have understood it in a Christian context, would Nicodemus not have known something of John’s baptism? Of course he would have (cf. Luke 7:29-30); he was not out of touch with what was going on, as indicative in John 1:19-28. There is no chance he would have taken that to mean physical birth, because the very nature of his follow up question to Jesus was asked incredulously (3:4). Thus, Jesus ruled out a physical birth. It is certain, there is NOTHING in John 3 to refer “water” to the “word of God.” One has to run to some other location in the New Testament to get away from the normal and ordinary meaning of the word water – all because of a theological predisposition. The basis of salvation is the Lord Jesus. The Lord told Nicodemus there are two components to salvation, and they are a “must.” Those two components are water and spirit. “Spirit” is generally interpreted to be the Holy Spirit, but there is no certain indication within the Greek New Testament to demand this. The Lord’s requirement of man was (and is) faith. This faith works exactly as Acts 18:8 illustrates. You might have been saved and baptized on Tuesday, but the New Testament does not recognize any such delineation. The word “works,” wherein a person is not justified by works, in a New Testament context is that act or thought that originates in the mind of man, used as a substitute to that which the Lord did (or said). There is no chance for you to be correct when you connect “works” to God’s commands. For by so doing you have relegated God’s commands as unnecessary, unimportant, not essential to one’s salvation, when 1 John 5:3 declares otherwise. The term “faith only” is not a term used in the New Testament in relation to one’s salvation, except in James 2:24.

JG – Therefore a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith and not by the works of law. For by the works of law shall no flesh be justified”. Galatians. Works of the law or “of law” refer to God’s laws and commands. We are not justified by works of any law that God has given. The law only condemns. Some say this refers only to the Law of Moses. But the Greek says “works of law” not necessarily works of THE law of Moses. Mosaic Law or Christian Law, we are not justified (saved) by works, but faith ONLY. This verse teaches clearly faith ALONE, whether it uses those words or not. The New Testament is clear.

RT – Completely false. You have to insert the word where the word does not exist. The context of Romans 3 demonstrate what law is in view, to say nothing of Galatians. I await your analysis of James 2. In the morning I hope to see it.

[The words within these brackets were not part of the original discussion. I include them because of the importance of the theme. ** The word “law” in Romans 3-4 and in Galatians pertains to the Law of Moses. The idea that “law” pertains to God’s commands are ludicrous. If God commanded something to be done, for man to come along and say that it is not essential puts him in a precarious situation (his resistance not withstanding). As I mentioned in a previous post, if a person wants to be justified by “works,” then that person has substituted something in place of the “mechanism” God employed whereby a man is actually justified. Man is justified by faith (Romans 1:17); this means that man is justified by his response to God’s gift (John 3:16). It does not mean, and never has, that man is justified by a mental assent apart from what the Lord said regarding other matters. Neither does it mean that man is justified when they trust in the Lord apart from that which the Lord Himself included in man’s salvation. For instance, the remark is often made that the other side of the coin identified as faith is repentance. The New Testament teaches nothing of the sort. There is no “coin” (or an equivalent word) where this is the case; it is strictly a man-made teaching. Some can very much believe, but a penitent heart follows not (John 12:42-43). The remark is made that God’s law only condemns. This is the case with regard to the Law of Moses, and the apostle Paul makes this plain (Acts 13:39). This not at all taught with what is known as the law of Christ (cf. James 1:25). It is either complete arrogance, or a lack of understanding, to say “law” refers to God’s laws and commands. Since the former might be interpreted as too harsh, then perhaps the latter is the case. Moreover, to say that baptism is a “work” of man is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics Paul addresses when he speaks concerning the issue that man is not justified by the works of the law. I marvel every time I read one’s thoughts concerning this. The Holy Spirit made it abundantly clear than in baptism, one is placed into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27), in baptism one is joined to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), in baptism one receives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).]

JG – Romans speaks of the law of God simply put. One is written, to the Jew. One is in the heart – the Gentile. One is not saved by law or law-keeping. It is all God’s law, manifested through conscience and the Scriptures. God commanded His people to be circumcised , yet Paul made it clear to all who trusted in their circumcisn that it will not save. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:24. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation. It does not save. Salvation is by grace through faith. Eph 2:8-9 does not say “by grace through faith and baptism, or church membership, or tithing, or doing good” although all those are commanded for believers. Please be careful, trusting in baptism I believe will prevent you from being saved. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” Galatians 5:1-5. James does not contradict Paul. Read Romans 4. Abraham was NOT justified by works before God. James says he was justified by works. In the context James is stating how our works justify us before men who must see outward proof of conversion. God does not need that. So Paul says he was not so justified before God.

RT – Yes, it is true that Romans speaks of the law of God – it is the Law of Moses. Simply put. There is no codified law in Romans 1, though in Romans 2-5 the context makes clear, exclusively, the Law of Moses is in view. Though there is no codified law in Romans 1, it is clear the Lord held accountable those who lived before the time Moses was given the Law. With the Law of Moses being given to a particular people, it was then to the non-Hebrew people there was no codified law. What you call the “law of the heart” is not mentioned in Romans. Perhaps you can codify this “law of the heart” for our discussion. 

To be saved by the “law” or “law-keeping” is not something that I have argued for, and if you think so, then you have misunderstood terribly what I have written. Your remark on circumcision is correct – if one trusted in the act, then no good it would have done for the one who submitted to it. If one trusted in it. On the other hand, if one did not obey, or did not obey in accordance with the directive God gave, then that is another matter. Tell me, Jeffery, if a man decided to circumcise male infant on the 9th day, 10th day or the 7th day – would that have pleased God? Under the Old Covenant, one was justified the same as they are today, by faith. It was not faith alone, but by faith. Under the Old Covenant, a male infant not circumcised on the 8th day was outside the covenant. Being outside the covenant, Jeffery, was to be outside God’s designed “ark of safety.” To not be circumcised on the 8th day, would that have been pleasing to God? If so, then how do you know? If not, then one is inside the covenant without faith (because an 8-day old infant can’t be justified by faith), but only by circumcision.

Your Galatians 2:24 remark is fine, but that only goes to demonstrate that if one wants to be justified by the law – the Law of Moses – then that one is not saved. You would know this if you paid attention to the remarks of Paul in the chapter. It is not “law” in general, but the Law of Moses specifically. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation? This is taught, just as you wrote it, where? Your Ephesians 2:8-9 does not teach it. I suppose, if I were to reason like you, that I could say that “repentance” is not required for salvation because Ephesians 2:8-9 speaks nothing of it. Or, perhaps, I could say it this way, “repentance is commanded, but it is only after one is saved by faith alone.” Certainly, you will argue this way, right? if I were to trust in baptism as you think, your remark/warning would be proper. I am not, however. Neither can you read anything that I have said to conclude that I am.

Yes, it is true James does not contradict Paul. Yes, let us read and compare Romans 4 with James 2.

“What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” (Romans 4:1-2, KJV)

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:20-24, KJV).

If you read the context of both chapters, you can easily see that in Romans 4, Paul speaks of circumcision, directly related to the Law of Moses. Moreover, the word “works” in that chapter is directly related to the same word in the previous chapter, the Law of Moses. In James, the Law of Moses might be in 2:1-12, but in 2:13-26 it is not under discussion at all. What is under discussion is how one is not justified by faith alone, exactly contrary to that which you believe and teach! James speaks nothing concerning justification before men. To whom does James 2:21 refer?

JG – Sir: The Gentiles in Romans had “The law written in their heart, their conscience the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another”. You say there is no law of the heart? It is stated so in Romans. God is speaking of the moral conscience all non-Jews had and have, without having the Scriptures. That is not the Mosaic law, but God’s universal moral law. We are not justified by works of any kind, whether works under the Mosaic Law, or works under God’s universal moral law, or works under the Christian dispensation. Was God pleased if the Jews did not keep their covenant (Mosaic Law)? Of course not. Is God pleased if a Christian chooses not to be baptized, or live by God’s moral precepts? Of course not. But the Jew of the Old Testament, and the Christian of the new, are not justified before God by anything more than faith in Christ. Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us. We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do. We are justified only on Christ’s finished work, as was the Jew of the Old Testament. We appropriate that through faith in Christ, then we obey because we are new creatures. Please continue your studies in the New Testament and also theology. This argument has been around since the dawn of the Christian church, and has been amply explained in many commentaries. The Church of Christ argues on the radio prolifically for baptismal regeneration, but Christians of all ages have already dealt with that view in depth. Your understanding of the New Testament is still limited. Remember, there always was, and always will be, one salvation for all mankind of all generations. The Old Testament Jew was not saved any differently than we are. He was not required to keep any commandments for salvation, only to live by the covenant God required of the Jew at that time. Circumcisn did not save the Jew, and baptism does not save the Christian. The thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because Jesus does not require baptism for salvation. It is irrelevant what dispensation he was under, although he was under the New. Did he know about Jesus’ death and resurrection for our sins? You say “no” but we don’t know that. Jesus taught prolifically on his death, resurrection, and substitutionary atonement while alive. This thief must have known that since Paul required that knowledge for salvation. But even if he did not understand fully, the Jew of the Old Testament did not necessarily understand the Messiah who was to come and shed his blood for his sins. But he put his faith in the truth that God would forgive him through the shed blood of an innocent sacrifice. He was saved the same as we are, and God based his salvation on Christ, but God allowed his limited understanding. “The times of ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” Acts. You say Ephesians 2:8-9 don’t mention repentance and so in my view that would mean repentance is not necessary for salvation? Again you fail to understand the full meaning of the words. Ephesians says faith alone. That is all that is required. Then does that contradict verses that teach repentance? No, for that is included in faith. Faith and repentance are the same act, from different angles. When we turn from what we did trust in and from our life to Christ, that one act is a turning from and a turning to. You cannot turn to without turning from. When looked at as a turning from, it is repentance. when looked at as a turning to, it is faith. God can say faith is all we need, because when one has faith, he automatically has repentance. Once cannot have one without the other. The Church of Christ also makes repentance a different act than faith, and then make salvation a series of steps,like, ask, repent, believe, receive, etc. When one trust Christ, that act is a repentance, also a receiving, a trusting, a giving of oneself, an asking, etc. It’s not as complicated as some think.

RT – When Paul speaks about this “law” he speaks in the context of the Gentiles standing in judgment over the Jewish man because in his heart is a standard more faithfully followed than that which the Jewish man has codified (Romans 2:11-16). I am glad you pressed the point of the “moral law” and I concur that something did exist prior to the Law of Moses being given; it even ran concurrent with the Law of Moses until the time of Christ. Again, can you codify this “law of the heart” for us Jeffery?

Under the authority of the Law of Moses, Paul said that those who “do the law are justified” (2:6-13, NKJV). “Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us.” Justification stands because God declares it; there is no other basis upon which to measure it. Nevertheless, you will receive no contrary perspective from me on this remark. But, your next remark is flat wrong. “We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do.” The “works” you speak of wherein a person is not justified is that thinking and/or action that seeks justification apart from God. In a New Testament context: faith, baptism are not works of man at all – they are the works of God (John 6:29, Luke 7:29-30; Colossians 2:12). Moreover, the apostle said expressly that one is justified by faith (Romans 1:17) and baptism incorporates one INTO Christ (Romans 6:3-7). One is not a new creation when he is outside of Christ.

It is a lie to speak of the “Church of Christ” arguing for “baptismal regeneration.” Perhaps I can speak of man-made churches like the Baptist Church as being antinomians! Yes, I know this issue has been around a long time, thus, I am a strong proponent for public oral debates on the issue of “faith alone” and its disconnect from New Testament teaching. Neither have I argued that salvation is in any way different than justification by faith. I refuse, however, to subscribe to the false doctrine that salvation is by faith alone, something the New Testament does not affirm.

Again, you are flat wrong relative to your remark on commandments required to be kept by one who lived under the authority of the Old Covenant, as Romans 2:13 illustrates, to say nothing of Deuteronomy 30:15-19. Of course Jesus did not require baptism for salvation; He only said it in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5, again, to say nothing of what He authorized Paul and Peter to say!

It is NOT irrelevant what dispensation the thief was under – because the New Testament addresses it. Yes, I can say with certainty, far more than you can say otherwise, the thief on the cross could not believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Even the apostles had difficulty accepting the fact of it when Jesus spoke to them personally.

I do not fail to understand the point relative to Ephesians 2:8-9; I am only using your reasoning method and applying the tactic you attribute to me back to you. I knew well you would reject this and, moreover, I knew well what you would say (by and large). Find “faith alone” in Ephesians, anywhere in the epistle. “Repentance” and “faith” are two different words. They do not mean the same things. Whatever relationship might exist between the words – they are different in meanings. Go to Vine’s Dictionary or Mounce’s and transcribe where “faith and repentance are the same act.” It is not there! It is not me who fails to understand word meanings; “repentance” (metanoeō) literally means to perceive afterwards, hence to change one’s mind or purpose. The word “trust” is nowhere found in the meaning of this word. “Faith” (pistis) means a firm persuasion, a conviction based on hearing (Hebrews 11:6, 1). No, I am not the one mistaken in this matter. I await your authoritative references to sustain your point. Repentance has a keen relationship to faith, but they are different words with different meanings.

In a New Testament context when one is saved by faith, that one is saved as a result of Hebrews 5:8-9. In other words, when one hears the word of God, believes it, turns from sin and is baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins, that one is justified by faith (Acts 18:8). It is true, salvation is not complicated – but it becomes so when people assert a false doctrine like faith alone, when the New Testament teaches not a bit of it.

JG – For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9. All that is needed is included in this verse. I cannot and will not argue the point further. Keep on studying and searching. We are saved by grace through faith. Repentance is not mentioned because it is assumed in the faith. One cannot have faith without repentance. Baptism is a work of man. It is an act we do beyond simple faith. We could say living right and doing good are works of God too. They are, but then the verse has no meaning. “To him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his FAITH is counted for righteousness (Romans). If you can’t see that’s faith alone, I cannot do more. I know you don’t accept that. I will leave you to the Holy Spirit to do as He sees fit. If your ardent study has not convinced you otherwise, there is probably nothing more I can do. It is up to God now.

RT – I will give you no substantive reply, since you want to go no further. I will reply in the word document I have made to keep track of the discussion, but unless you want to see that (which I assume you won’t), I will let it drop here.

[It is clear to me the substance of what I submitted last was more than could be handled. There is nothing in Ephesians 2:8-9 that warrants inserting the word “alone” in there like Jeffery does. Jeffery and those similar to him do the same as Satan did in the Garden when they insert a word not put there or even implied into the biblical text. One cannot have faith without repentance, we are told. Yet the demons believed and did not repent (James 2:19), the Pharisees believed but would not confess because they loved the praise of me more than of God (John 12:42-43). The people believed, but John refused to baptize them until fruits worthy of repentance was brought forth, and some feared being put out of the synagogue (Matthew 3:1-10; cf. John 9:22). Examples of faith without repentance. Of course, the reply to these examples will be, “But, that is different…they did not have a saving faith.” It is clear there is a difference between what one would call a saving faith and a faith that does not save; the point is sustained – one can have faith without repentance.

Also, the notion of God’s command as being works of man is ludicrous, unless man actually thought of God’s commands as his own personal work of righteousness. There is no chance, however, if a person seeks to obey God because of his love for Him, and God commanded a person to be baptized for (with a view to) the remission of sins, that person is seeking to be saved by works. A man who is “saved” by works is a man who seeks to substitutes what God put in place for his own way of thinking. As demonstrated in this discussion, the works mentioned are directly related to the Old Testament, in a system that was not designed by God to save at all (Acts 13:39; 15:10, 24). Could one be saved by God who refused to obey? No, one could not; that would be rebellion. Under the Old Covenant, one was saved as under the New Covenant today, by faith. It is not faith alone, but by faith.

It is a complete lie to say baptism is a work of man! I guess I could be charitable and say, when a comment like that is made relative to baptism, the one who so speaks, speaks from a lack of understanding. This is true, but the same one who so asserts bought into a lie fabricated before him. Baptism is nowhere called a work of man, to begin. Second, baptism is a command of God. Third, in baptism, one receives the forgiveness of sin and “puts on Christ” (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26-27). If that is a work of man (it is not), then one whale of a work it is! Moreover, to equate baptism as a work of man with “living right and doing good” is to fail in making a distinction as the New Testament does. God expressly said baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21)! In Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 3:4-8, the idea of good works is clearly set forth after one is saved by God.

As I bring this to a close, I marvel at the insistence some have in their effort to relegate a command of God as non-essential for salvation, when the Lord expressly made it essential. Though I marvel at this effort, I am saddened by the manipulation of the biblical text (or texts) toward a theological bent not taught in the New Testament, as they affirm it. The Scripture is very plain when it is expressly said that one is not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). For those who subscribe to a man-made doctrine like faith alone (cf. Matthew 15:1-14), it does not matter what the Lord said, it only matters what they want to believe.

Jeffery said that he will leave me in this discussion to the Holy Spirit as He sees fit. For that I am grateful, for it is only the Holy Spirit (or God) that I want to please. Consequently, a man-made doctrine like faith alone I reject.]

 

 

Legalism (4)

26 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the fourth in a series on LEGALISM. To see the whole document please visit www.rv85.net.

FACEBOOK

The word legalism is not in the Bible, so I asked others on a Facebook list to define the word. One definition that was given was 2 Corinthians 3:6. Three translations of the passage are given: a) who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (ESV), b) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (KJV), c) He has qualified even me as a minister of the new covenant, which is not a written but a spiritual covenant. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (Williams).

Note that the word legalism is not in the passage (or context).

Otherwise, from the Facebook entries, here is what I received: strict adherence, conformity, a list of do’s and don’ts, trying to be justified by the law (Galatians 5:4). Some have included putting one’s trust in one’s performance of the law, trusting in works to save you (or earning salvation), adding one’s own righteousness to what Jesus did.

WEBSITES.

Here is how one website defined it: (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html).

  • “It is a term Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth.”
  • Again, from the same source, “Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward change.”

Legalism is a system of thinking that is “essentially opposed to grace.” Grace is understood as that way of thinking that is tolerant of people who are of a different persuasion/thinking on varying doctrinal issues.

  • There is a qualification, however; “A word of caution is necessary here. While we need to be gracious to one another and tolerant of disagreement over disputable matters, we cannot accept heresy. We are exhorted to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).”

As I synthesize the above, legalism is an attitude of thinking that speaks to a person outwardly obeying commands, but inwardly having no heart for those commands.

Another website says: (http://www.christinyou.net/pages/legalism.html)

  • Legalism, “Legalism – social or self-acceptance of the observance of law, and conformity to the requirements thereof, as the basis of…Theological determination of spiritual condition or destiny, Sociological/religious control of human behavior”

This website has a large outline that is full of commentary on what meets his definition of legalism and what a legalist does and thinks. In his commentary, he made this remark: “Christianity is not a legal, judicial, law-based religion”

I am sure he did not intend what the ramifications of this remark conveys.

  • Is Christianity not a “legal” religion? Is not God king, the legal authority to establish His will for man? Matthew 28:18-20
  • Is Christianity not a judicial religion? Will not the words of Jesus, as spoken in John 12:48, judge us in the last day?
  • Is Christianity not a law-based religion? Do we not have a law of liberty, as expressed by James in James 1:25?

In a strict dictionary definition of the word it means to adhere or conform to the standard of law.

The English dictionary puts no value judgment on this word. There were many on Facebook who did give an interpretative evaluation as they defined the word. Since the Bible does not use the word and, thus, offers no value judgment to it (obviously!), those who did offer a value judgment did so based on a theologically prejudiced approach. One man said that legalism in his mind is a rigid list of do’s and don’ts wherein complete law keeping is neither possible nor necessary.

Legalism (3)

16 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the third in a series that I am doing on LEGALISM. To see the complete document please go to www.rv85.net.

*************

BIBLE STUDIES. Scofield Bible (p. 1614, study notes on “The Law of Moses, Summary”). “Law, as a method of divine dealing with man, characterized the dispensation extending from the giving of the law to the death of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:13-14, 23-24).” And “[t]he attempt of legalistic teachers (e.g. Acts 15:1-31; Gal. 2:1-5) to mingle law with grace as the divine method for this present dispensation of the Church, brought out the true relation of the law to Christians.”

The Christian Doctrine of the law (all below are direct quotes). (B-1) Law is in contrast with grace. Under the latter God bestows the righteousness which, under law, He demanded (Ex. 19:5; John 1:17; Rom. 3:21, note; 10:3-10; 1 Cor. 1:30). (B-2) The law is, in itself, holy, just, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12-14). (B-3) Before the law the whole world is guilty, and the law is therefore of necessity a ministry of condemnation, death, and the divine curse (Rom. 3:19; 2 Cor. 3:7-9; Gal. 3:10). (B-4) Christ bore the curse of the law, and redeemed the believer from the curse and from the dominion of the law (Gal. 3:13; 4:5-7). (B-5) Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer (Gal. 2:16; 3:2-3, 11-12). (B-6) The believer is both dead to the law and redeemed from it, so that he is “not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14; 7:4; Gal. 2:19; 4:4-7; 1 Tim. 1:8-9). (B-7) And under the new covenant of grace the principle of obedience to the divine will is produced inwardly (Heb. 10:16). So far is the life of the believer from the anarchy of self-will that he is “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21), and the new “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; 2 John 5) is his delight; whereas, through the indwelling Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him (Ro, 8:2-4; Gal. 5:16-18). The commandments are used in the distinctively Christian Scriptures as an instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17; compare Rom. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 9:8-9; Eph. 6:1-3).

ANALYSIS of the above remarks

Analysis of  the top paragraph.  It is true that the covenant given to Israel was characterized by the word “law.” It would be a mistake, however, to look upon the word “law” apart from what the Lord said with regard to the heart. Some of that which the Lord said can be read in Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Micah 6:8, Joshua 22:5, and Isaiah 33:15. The “legalistic teachers” (a word not in the texts referenced) of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 attempted to incorporate/fuse two diametrically opposed standards into one. The gospel Paul preached was a gospel of liberty, while that which the “false brethren” proclaimed was the message of “circumcision” (Galatians 2:3). The word “circumcision” stood for the whole of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1) – and the contexts of Galatians 2 and Acts 15 make this clear. The liberty in Christ stands in contrast to the bondage brought by the law that one is beholden to sin (cf. Romans 7:24). The specificity of sin, however, can (could) only be known by God’s revealed law (Romans 3:20). The law, in this context, was not designed by God to save, but to “point out.” Thus, to properly understand “law” in the remarks above is not to understand “law” in general, but “law” in the specific, that is, the Law of Moses.

Analysis of the second paragraph.  With regard to B-1 not a single referenced text establishes their point that God demanded righteousness from the old law, that is, a righteousness that one could attain on their own. With regard to Romans 10:3, the problem was not what God established, but what man attempted to establish. On B-2, the point is true. B-3 can be understood in a couple of ways. First, is the point made that before the existence of the Law of Moses the world was guilty of sin? Second, is the word “law” standing in front of the whole world pointing out its sinfulness? The first option is true because Paul addressed this point in Romans 5. The second option is not true at all unless the word “law” refers to the law of Christ. The passages of Scripture referenced only sustain the point with regard to the Law of Moses. B-4 will, once again, pertain only to the Law of Moses. It does not apply to “law” in general because Paul is contextually speaking of the Law of Moses. B-5 is true, but the passages referenced speak of the Law of Moses. The passages referenced in B-6 refer to the Law of Moses. The possible exception, by context, is 1 Timothy 1:8-9. I say “possible” because not all expositors concur that the Law of Moses is not the point under discussion (in a brief survey, the following expositors think the Law of Moses is what Paul had in mind: Ralph Earle, Phillip Towner, Gareth Reese). B-7 admits there is “law” that applies to the Christian, and it is certainly true that the Christian’s response to the law, as written in B-7, is accurate. The reference to Romans 8:2-4 (Galatians 5:16-18) is a point of contrast between two systems (both of God), only one of which justifies. Moreover, ALL God’s commandments are instructions in righteousness, but there is a distinction between the covenants wherein some commands apply to a specific group. The Old Covenant applied to those who lived under it (Israel); the New Covenant applies to all who live today (called the “law of liberty;” James 1:25).

James 1:25 – But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. ESV

James 1:25 – But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. KJV

Legalism (2)

09 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the second in a series on LEGALISM that I am posting on this blog. To see the complete document please go to www.rv85.net

********

DEFINITION. The word legalism is defined as a strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious moral code (Merriam-Webster Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition, p. 1047). The word legalist is defined an advocate or adherent of moral legalism; one that views things from a legal standpoint, especially one that place primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal structure of governmental institutions (Webster, p. 1047). The word pharisee is defined (identified) as one who is a member of the Jewish religious sect noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and….on the validity of their own oral tradition concerning the law (Webster, p. 1368). A strict, literal adherence to a standard by which something is measured. Exactly what is meant by “excessive” is vague to me. The word pharisee is included in this section because of its use in some religious conversations; it does not have a direct impact on properly understanding legalism.

REFERENCE WORKS. The words legalism or legalist is not found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia-Revised, and neither is the word legal. Neither words are in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. They are not in Faussett’s Bible Cyclopedia. Neither words are in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Neither word is found in my one-volume edition of Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.

In McClintock’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature the word legalist is found, and it reads in part, “Properly speaking, a legalist is one who ‘acts according to the law;’ but in general the term is made use of to denote one who seeks salvation by works of law (not of the law, but of ‘law’ generally, whether moral or ceremonial, ek ergōn nomou, Romans v. 20) instead of by the merits of Christ” (5.325).

In Geisler’s Systematic Theology (4.223-224) there is a discussion of legalism, an error of Theonomists and Biblionomists. Theonomists are those who subscribe to the view that governments should be subject to the Old Testament law of God, similar to what one understands as a theocracy. Biblionomists is a moderate form of the same, the church over state paradigm. Geisler defines legalism as the belief that we are sanctified by law-keeping – that adhering to the Old Testament law is a means of our sanctification. Geisler denies there is any biblical sanction to such an approach, but in fact, the New Testament is clear that keeping the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments was peculiar to the Israelites, not those living under the authority of the New Covenant.

Very little in the way of reference works entry (that I have), but that which does include it speaks of salvation by “law keeping,” that is, in keeping the Law of Moses.

BIBLE.  Legalism and legalist are not Bible words and, with regard to the theological works that I have, they are not words that demand entry into the recognized works (except the two I referenced above). As best I can tell, the words are of relatively late origin in religious circles and defined by some in a mostly religiously prejudicial way. The word law is obviously related to legalism.  Of course, this is a Bible word, and it is used quite a large number of times. The Hebrew word torah gives us our English word law in the Old Testament. Hasting’s says the word means a pointing out, direction, an authoritative direction (vol. 3. 64). “It was in no way the case that salvation was initially achieved through keeping the commandments of the Torah. From the very beginning the Torah was not understood ‘legally’” (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 2.473). In the New Testament the English word law is the Greek word nomos (195x), and this can refer to any law whatsoever (Hastings 3.73). In the New Testament the word nomos is “usually the Mosaic law as a whole” (EDNT 2.473). The word law, as in the Law of Moses, was never designed by God to save a person.

Acts 13:38-39 reads, “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV).

Galatians 3:10-11, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.’ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith’” (NKJV).

In fact, the law (Law of Moses) was designed by God to do the following: a) Romans 3:20, to give knowledge of sin, b) Romans 4:15, to manifest the wrath (judgment) of God because of sin, c) Galatians 3:21-25, to teach those under its authority that a greater covenant is forthcoming (cf. John 6:44-45, 2 Corinthians 3:9).

Legalism (1)

02 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

The coming series on the topic of LEGALISM is a newly formatted word document for the purposes of this blog. The actual document can be found at http://www.rv85.net.

*****

INTRODUCTION. As a preliminary to a discussion on legalism, I want to offer a recent (expanded) article I wrote on the word pharisee. This study addresses a word used by some in an accusatory fashion.

A Modern Day Pharisee

The word “pharisee” is a word used in some religious discussions. Its use is one that is negative in application. On Facebook earlier this week I asked the question: “What is a modern-day pharisee?” Many answers were given, but all of them were nothing but opinions; there was no Scripture offered to sustain an application of the word in today’s religious environment. Whatever value there might be in a person’s opinion, opinions are like noses—everyone has one! With these opinions and with this label “pharisee” thrown around as readily as it is, there is no real way to communicate effectively. On the other hand, one is communicating well with the use of the word, but its communication that genders, occasionally, a sharp response.

From the New Testament we learn the following concerning what is a pharisee. 1) A pharisee rejects Jesus as the Christ (John 7:32-49), 2) a pharisee elevates tradition to a place where, 3) a pharisee rejects God’s commands (Mark 7:1-13), and 4) a pharisee tries to control what others think concerning the Christ (John 9:22).

The 4th point needs a bit of elaboration lest someone misunderstands or perverts the thrust of the remark (and context). In the context of John 9, because the first three points are already in place, #4 is implemented. In other words, there was a rejection of Jesus, His mission, His teaching, and all who subscribed to what He taught were under suspicion. Thus, there was an effort to control another’s thinking concerning the Christ (cf. John 12:42-43).

Thus, in a proper sense, unless one meets the criteria (at least one) above, he is not a pharisee.

What solution is there to being accused as a modern-day pharisee? First, reject the label when it is thrown around. Many just want to use it, not because it is accurate, but because the position taken by the “thrower” is a weak one and this is a method of weakening you. Second, be sure to know Jesus by allowing Him to teach you His word (John 10:1-5; 12:48). Not only will you gain knowledge, but you will also gain godly wisdom. Godly wisdom is needed in teaching others, especially those who throw accusations around. Third, make it a point for yourself that you don’t fall into the trap of pharisee thinking (see any of the points above). This is more difficult than one realizes. We all believe we are spot-on right in the things we think. Our thinking (opinions), however, must be subservient to the Lord’s way (John 14:6; 1 John 4:1, 6).

I am no modern-day pharisee (as some think) and neither am I an olden-day pharisee. I am just a Christian.

Did God expect His Israelites to be “legalists”?

Deuteronomy 27:1

(ASV)  And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandment which I command you this day. (Brenton)  And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded, saying, Keep all these commands, all that I command you this day. (JPS)  And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying: ‘Keep all the commandment which I command you this day. (NET.)  Then Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people: “Pay attention to all the commandments I am giving you today.

Deuteronomy 27:26

(ASV)  Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Brenton)  Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them: and all the people shall say, So be it. (JPS)  Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’  (NET.)  ‘Cursed is the one who refuses to keep the words of this law.’ Then all the people will say, ‘Amen!’

Romans (3)

24 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

justification by faith, law of Moses, oracles, works

In chapter 1, the Gentiles are guilty of sin; in chapter 2, the Jews are not immune, they are also guilty of sin. In chapter 3, Paul illustrates this with the Scriptures. Whereas the Jew would argue that their failings actually brought out God’s glory, Paul rejected such because, if that was so, then the same could be said for the Gentile also, to mention nothing about the false accusation leveled against Paul (3:7-8). More than that, however. The Scripture attests that Jews are no better than the Gentiles though they were fortunate to have God’s oracles (word) given to them. To the Jew the advantage was in receiving, learning and knowing there was (and is) an absolute standard by which God will judge people. Paul gives a clarification to this. The Law of Moses was given only to Israel, and not to the Gentiles. Thus, the Law established for the Jew how guilty of sin he himself was and, moreover, that it was not God’s design to justify any under that standard (3:19-20). Now, however, God’s righteous standard that applies to all is seen in Jesus; Moses’ Law even attested to this (John 5:39-47, 6:44-45). Since God is God over all, it is unreasonable for the non-Jew to be judged by a standard not given him. Jesus came to save all. Because He did, it is clear that Moses’ law could not save (or justify).

 

 

Jesus Was Wrong!

14 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

commands, earning, Jesus, salvation, theology, works, wrong

It is a tremendous shame that Jesus was so wrong (!) in giving the answer He did to the one who inquired of Him what he must do to enter into God’s kingdom (Mark 10:17-22)! Can you imagine Jesus being so mistaken to answer this way? Yet, He had to be if the norm of Protestant theology holds the day in religious thinking. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. This, however, means that one “works” his way to heaven and, a form of legalism. As we know, Jesus just had to be wrong about that!

Of course, Jesus was wrong about nothing, and especially about how one makes an entrance into the heavenly kingdom. That which is wrong and those who are wrong are the subscribers to such thinking! Protestant theology teaches that if one obeys God’s commands, that in obeying God’s commands, any and all commands, there is an effort at working or earning one’s salvation. Completely ludicrous!

In proper biblical theology, when one obeys God, then the one who obeys is motivated to obey as a result of the love in his (her) heart. This is the very idea undergirding Paul’s words to the church in Rome when he wrote, “But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered” (Romans 6:17, ASV, emphasis added, RT).

In Mark 10, Jesus told the inquirer that to enter into heaven one must obey what is learned in the Ten Words (ten commandments), and in each of these commands, Jesus said, there was a “do not” five times, and a “do” one time. It was not, and it is not, a matter of earning anything, but it is a matter of loving the Lord enough to hear what He said and to comply with His desires.

 

A Mistake in Interpretation

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

faith, hermeneutics, interpretation, law of Moses, sin, works

It is a mistake in interpretation to look upon the Law of Moses as a decree of God that could (or would) save a person. Note what Paul said in Romans 8:3, “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (ESV).

Pay particular attention to the commas, and remove the phrase between the commas and then read what is said: “For God has done what the law could not do.” Why could not the Law of Moses save? Because it was not designed to save anyone (cf. Acts 13:39), but to point out something the Lord wanted man to know: there is such a thing as sin, and it is damning! In the early stages of man’s existence, this concept was not unfamiliar, but now with a law in place, the Lord removed what excuse man was prone to make (Romans 3:19-20).

Thus, the Jew who tried to gain justification with God via the Law of Moses could not do so because the law brought to man’s knowledge his inability to hit “God’s mark” (sin means to miss the mark). Not only that, however, but in order to help man hit the mark, the Lord declared what kind of response man was to give, and He used Abraham to illustrate the point: faith. Note what Paul said, “but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works” (Romans 9:31-32, ESV). In other words, they used their perceived “obedience” (or compliance) to the God’s (or the Law’s) demands as “work” to be done, and then “payment” to be made by the one who made the demand. Consequently, they thought, God “owed” them wages for that which they did, and this, they believed, was salvation.

The Law of Moses had a purpose, and that purpose included bringing the Savior into this world (Galatians 3:13-16, 19-27; 4:4). Thus, no one could be saved by the Law of Moses, even if lived perfectly. Those who tried, failed; they failed because, among other things, they failed to understand its purpose.

← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 720 other followers

Last Month

Log in

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogs I Follow

  • Christian Publishing House Blog
  • Canon Fodder
  • PreachingHelp.org
  • Biblical Proof
  • Sunrush Church of Christ
  • The Church of God : Official Website
  • Brotherhood News
  • Believing Prayer
  • Daniel B. Wallace
  • NT Resources
  • etsop95
  • Forthright Press
  • Ferrell's Travel Blog
  • Larry Hurtado's Blog
  • Carolina Messenger
  • ThinkingJesus
  • CRI
  • Big Ten Network
  • eScriptorium
  • Biblical Notes

Blog Stats

  • 15,231 hits

RSS Unknown Feed

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
<ul id="<a-href="https://jar.tiddlyhost.com/-WebList">See-WebList
  • Blog at WordPress.com.

    Christian Publishing House Blog

    Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity

    Canon Fodder

    Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues

    PreachingHelp.org

    The sermons and writings of Steve Higginbotham

    Biblical Proof

    Speaking where the bible speaks, and silent where the bible is silent.

    Sunrush Church of Christ

    The Church of God : Official Website

    There is one Body!

    Brotherhood News

    Believing Prayer

    Daniel B. Wallace

    Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

    NT Resources

    etsop95

    Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

    Forthright Press

    Straight to the Cross

    Ferrell's Travel Blog

    Commenting on biblical studies, archaeology, travel and photography

    Larry Hurtado's Blog

    Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

    Carolina Messenger

    "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

    ThinkingJesus

    Letting Jesus Speak Today

    CRI

    Big Ten Network

    Big Ten Network's website

    eScriptorium

    Biblical Notes

    - Est. 1965 by Roy C. Deaver -

    • Follow Following
      • etsop95
      • Join 720 other followers
      • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
      • etsop95
      • Customize
      • Follow Following
      • Sign up
      • Log in
      • Report this content
      • View site in Reader
      • Manage subscriptions
      • Collapse this bar