“Deity - ology”

All scripture is theology, but not all theology is scripture. Scripture is God-breathed; theology is man-breathed. In order for theology to be God-breathed it must be scripture. Saving faith will result from obeying what God said (Romans 10:17). What God said is found ONLY in the scriptures.

If you're going to teach/preach ('speak' - 1 Peter 4:11), use scripture, not theology. - theology is defined by scripture; scripture is not defined by theology. The Bible definition of theology: words to no profit that subverts the hearer, that will increase unto more ungodliness and will eat as a canker - 2 Timothy 2:14, 17. Strive not about such words, but rather, rightly apply God's theology (2 Timothy 2:15).

No amount of rightly dividing man's theology will transform it into God's theology. Theology 'twists' God's words (Acts 20:30). It makes a proselyte out of a disciple. All disciples are proselytes, but not all proselytes are disciples. The determining factor is the doctrine they have been subjected to.

When a sinner is taught theology, he becomes a proselyte. Scripture states that he is made twice as much a child of hell as his teacher (Matthew 23:15). He is not made free from his sin, but is yet a slave of sin because of the form of doctrine to which he was committed (Romans 6:17-18). 

If scripture was delivered rather than theology, a sinner will call upon the name of the Lord as those in the book of Acts called. Scripture was delivered and obeyed from the heart in those recorded cases of conversions. 

THE RESPONSE OF THE SINNER REVEALS THE DOCTRINE THAT WAS PREACHED TO HIM, FOR HE WILL RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEACHING HE HEARD.

rdb

10/26/2020

The Blood of Christ

Christ shed HIS blood. The BLOOD that was shed belonged to Christ. We may properly refer to it as the blood of Christ. Let us consider some lessons from this phrase 'the blood of Christ' as it applies to Christ's church.

Jesus said the shedding of His blood was going to be for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). Paul stated that Jesus shed His blood to purchase the church (Acts 20:28). These purposes are one and the same, for those in His church are those who have had their sins remitted. To have sins remitted is to be "in" Christ's church. There is a connection between the two and lessons to be learned from that connection, one of which is, proper and improper concepts of Christ's church.

Jesus foretold of the shedding of His blood by saying that HE was going to "build" His church (Matthew 16:18). This "building", was also connected to the remission of man's sins, for His blood had to be shed before sins would be remitted (Hebrews 9:22); and before the church would be "purchased" (Acts 20:28). The church being "built" and being "purchased" mean one and the same, the blood being shed for that purpose.

If Christ was to speak beforehand of the shedding of His blood in the manner in which He spoke of building His church, He would have said it this way:"I will shed My blood", as He said "I will build My church". We know this to be accurate, for He spoke beforehand of the purchasing of the church with His blood in this way.

If we were to refer to Christ's blood, we could express it in a number of ways: i.e., "Christ's blood"; the "blood of Christ", or "the blood belonging to Christ". Since Christ was "God" in nature (John 1:1), it would be in order to even refer to His blood as "the blood of God", so long as we understand that it was the Son, not the Father, who shed blood.

There is a lesson to be learned about Christ's church, by an analogy of the church and the blood are referenced. Christ shed his blood for "the world", [for God so loved "the world" ~ John 3:16]. But does it seem in order to refer to Christ's blood after those for whom it was shed, i.e., the "blood of the world" or the "universal blood"?

The church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 41). But does it seem in order to refer to Christ's church as the "pentecost" church", naming the church after the "day"?

There was a response from those who desired remission of sins on this same day (Acts 2:38, 41). But does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "blood of repentance", or the "repentance blood"; because those on the day of Pentecost responded in repentance (v. 41)? Likewise, does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "baptism blood", or the "blood of baptism", because those on the day of Pentecost submitted to baptism?

Would these designations of Christ's blood seem in order? Again, WHOSE BLOOD IS IT?

Christ DID speak beforehand of purchasing, or building His church. He said, "I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18).

As with reference to Christ's BLOOD, if we were to refer to Christ's CHURCH, we would express it in similar ways: i.e., "Christ's church"; the "church of Christ", or "the church belonging to Christ" would we not?

Since Christ was "God" in nature (John 1:1), it would be in order to even refer to His church as the "church of God", as long as we understand that it was the Son, not the Father who purchased the church, for the Son, not the Father, shed blood.

Those who have had their sins remitted, are to follow a pattern or method in how they worship, and in how they are to work together in spreading the gospel and in the work of building/strengthening one another up. But is it in order for the church to be called after the method, i.e., the "method" church?

There is a pattern or method to follow in how those purchased by Christ's blood are to be fed and protected (Acts 20:17, 28); but is it in order for the blood/church to be called after it's leaders, such as the "elders church"?

Would these designations seem in order? Again, WHOSE CHURCH IS IT?

Let us remember the words of the apostle Paul:

"... in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." ~ Ephesians 2:13

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins..." ~ Colossians 1:14

"...if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." ~ 1 John 1:7

9/28/2020

rdb

EXCHANGING WHAT IF'S...

Found--ancient document detailing the following exchange:

Joshua: "God requires holiness from His people. He requires us to offer sacrifices in the place He chose to put His name in order to atone for our sins."

Nameless Israelite: "Sacrifices cannot be necessary. What if a man is on his way to offer a sacrifice and a tree falls on him and kills him?"

Joshua: "God requires holiness from His people. He requires us to offer sacrifices in the place He chose to put His name in order to atone for our sins."

Found—modern document detailing the following exchange:

Preacher of righteousness: The apostle Peter told his fellow Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins.

Nameless believer: “Repentance cannot be necessary. What if a man is contemplating repentance and a tree falls on him and kills him?”

Preacher of righteousness: The apostle Peter told his fellow Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins.

Nameless believer: “Baptism cannot be necessary. What if a man is on his way to be baptized and a tree falls on him and kills him?”

Preacher of righteousness: The apostle Peter told his fellow Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins.

9/24/2020

rdb

"UNDERSTANDING IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS"

The Bible repeatedly warns man to exercise caution as to whom and what he hears. We see this exemplified in the first two people, Adam and Eve. They listened to Satan’s words then acted upon their belief in what Satan said. In doing so they disobeyed what God had commanded and incurred God’s wrath. Their punishment was two-fold: spiritual and physical death. We see this from the apostle Paul’s words to the church of Christ at Rome. In Romans 5:12, 15-17, 21 he wrote: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all (not Adam) sinned”. This is significant, as we will see.

Adam and Jesus are compared and contrasted here in Romans 5. God’s eternal purpose is explained from this text. Notice how that which came through Jesus is similar to that which came through Adam.

“But the gift (eternal life – Romans 6:23), is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam), how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”

Notice also the contrast between Jesus and Adam: “Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment (from God) followed (came after) one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed (came after) many trespasses and brought justification…For if, by the trespass of the one man (Adam), death reigned through that one man(Adam), how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ…so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” What we learn from this is that death passed on to us from Adam; not his sin (as some teach). Death has passed on to us because all have sinned, as Adam did (v. 12). [All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – Romans 3:23]

WE ARE NOT BORN SINNERS BECAUSE ADAM SINNED; WE BECOME SINNERS WHEN WE COMMIT SIN, JUST AS ADAM BECAME A SINNER WHEN HE DISOBEYED!

[The wages of sin is death – Romans 6:23] Which is why death passed on to us from Adam; it was the ‘wage’ (consequence) of disobedience. The same ‘wage’ passed. In like manner, ‘life’ has passed on to us through Christ, for grace came to us through Christ (v. 21) and John 1:17[eternal life was thus a ‘gift’ of God through Jesus – Romans 6:23]

When we obey, as Christ did (Hebrews 5:8-9), the ‘gift’ is received. We do not receive the ‘gift’ without our own obedience any more than we incur the ‘wage’ from another’s disobedience. In other words we are not punished because of Adam’s disobedience; nor do we receive the ‘gift’ based upon Christ’s obedience. This was what God purposed from eternity. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH JESUS CHRIST our Lord.” Christ’s obedience to the will of God made it possible for us to be made righteous (v. 19). But we also have to obey God’s will just as He did. We can understand how Adam’s sin brought death, through understanding how Jesus’ obedience brought life. They stand in contrast to each other, yet occurred in a similar fashion.

Notice: Adam disobeyed; this constituted sin, and the consequence of that disobedience was death. Death passed on to all who sinned after the manner of Adam’s transgression. Again, it is not that Adam’s transgression passed on to us, but because our sins were of the same nature as Adam’s; we incurred the same PENALTY as Adam—death, which is separation from God. This is why Isaiah would write, “…your iniquities have separated between you and your God...” (Isaiah 59:1-2).

Now, let’s notice the ‘nature’ of Adam’s sin. Our sin and Adam’s sin were similar in nature in that we, as Adam, disobeyed commands from the same being who gave to us life—GOD. Likewise, Jesus obeyed. This constituted righteousness and the gift to all who obey Him is eternal life; this LIFE passes on to all who obey after the manner of Jesus’ obedience. It is not that Jesus’ righteousness passes on to us, but because our obedience is to be of the same nature as Jesus’, we have righteousness imputed to us.

Notice from Hebrews 5:8-9 – “ Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him…” The obedience of Jesus provides a pattern. Our obedience is to be of the same nature as His. The apostle Paul described it this way in Philippians 2:8, “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Jesus died FOR our sin. We are called upon to die TO our sin. God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Romans 1:17). It is attained through faith and was witnessed by the Law and the prophets (Romans 3:21).

The apostle Peter explained it this way, “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps…He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:21, 24).

9/10/2020

rdb

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC: USED AND UN-USED.

Two opposite positions cannot both be right. Most people would say, if asked, that instrumental music in worship has always been used in churches. The fact of the matter is, that is just the opposite. There is such abundant evidence to the contrary that, for one to continue to believe that, in the face of such evidence, is to be willingly ignorant.

Christians who understand the concept of the need for AUTHORITY have always correctly argued that there is no authority for the use of instruments of music in the New Testament. Although the modern-day denominations proudly play their mechanical instruments in worship; that has not always been the case. In the past, they were opposed to their use, on the same basis for which we in the church of Christ still oppose them – NO AUTHORITY IN THE SCRIPTURES!

The Roman Catholic church once opposed them but now use them (although today, the Greek Orthodox Catholic church still does not use them). Their own documents bear witness to this. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652 we read: “Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice.”

From this same writing on pg. 657-688 we read: “For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, acapella style.”

From Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol 7, p. 112 we read: “The organ is said to have been first introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian in 666. In 757, a great organ was sent as a present to Pepin by the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine, and placed in the church St. Corneille as Compiegne.”

From John Calvin, in his Commentary on Psalms 33 we read: “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him.”

Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran church said of them: “The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal. The Roman Catholics borrowed it from the Jews.” (McClintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

Consider the following quotes from the book entitled “50 Years Among the Baptists” by David Benedict: “Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon have tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries” (p. 283)

Charles Spurgeon, Baptist: “What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it.” He then declared: “I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery.”

In his commentary on Psalms 42, he wrote of instruments: “We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument is like the human voice.”

Adam Clark, Methodist: “I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity."

John Wesley, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, 'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same.

Notice that they once opposed mechanical instruments in worship. WERE THEY WRONG IN DOING SO? Would any present-day member of a denominational church say that they were in error for such opposition? If not, does it not mean that their use today is wrong?

You can’t both be right.

9/5/2020

rdb

TOLBERT FANNING'S CONVERSION AND MY CONVERSION

Of Tolbert Fanning it was stated:

When sixteen years of age, he was encouraged to read the New Testament, with the view of really acquiring spiritual light. Soon all was plain, and his gloomy doubts gave place to an intelligent faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

About the first of October, 1827, he heard a discourse on the Gospel and its conditions, and, at the conclusion of the discourse, he walked forward, and, with a perfect understanding of the truth, made the confession, and was immediately immersed into Christ.

[Taken from: The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church (1868); W. T. Moore, ed.]

IMPORTANT FACTS: "he was encouraged to read the New Testament WITH THE VIEW OF REALLY ACQUIRING SPIRITUAL LIGHT..."

[This was in spite of the fact that he had PREVIOUSLY been told by preachers that it was IMPOSSIBLE to be enlightened apart from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit...]

As a result of his reading the New Testament: "HIS DOUBTS GAVE PLACE TO AN INTELLIGENT FAITH..."

Later, "He heard a sermon on the "gospel and its conditions"...at the conclusion of the discourse, "he walked forward WITH A PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUTH, MADE THE CONFESSION, AND WAS IMMEDIATELY IMMERSED INTO CHRIST."

A QUESTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

- Was Tolbert Fanning saved from his sins after doing this, or was he still in his sins?

- Did he obey a false doctrine?

I have done as Tolbert Fanning did; yet I did NOT pray a sinner's prayer; I did NOT confess my sins, but my faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ.

In regard to my sins, I repented of them...

I was NOT baptized with the understanding that I was already saved, but with the understanding that my sins would be washed in baptism.

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

- Was I saved from my past sins after doing this, or am I still in sin?

- Did I obey a false doctrine?

As the apostle Paul said, "I write these things according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." ~ 2 Corinthians 13:10

8/23//2020

rdb

Jane Schoolteacher or Jane Doe?

Did anyone ever read of the Corinth Catholic church...the Ephesus Baptist church, or the Philippi Methodist church?

Did you ever wonder 'why'? Because, in the Bible, the church "of Christ" is His bride, and the bride wears the name of her husband.

Eph. 5:23-25, 32 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

When division occurs in a local group, (whether total/partial); often the new "group" will take on a new "name". The reason for the new name, is to identify the 'distinction' between them and the "old" group from which they recently departed.

The new "name" serves to identify what the 'split' or 'division' was over. For example, we see this in the name "baptist" that was chosen as a name for a particular 'faith', or 'church' (i.e., the ____ Baptist church)

It is obvious that when this denomination first started (1607); BAPTISM was the key issue. History revealed that, at the time, there were differing views on baptism, (whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion was the correct way to baptize). So those who 'held' to the conviction that ONLY immersion was the correct way, separated from those who practiced sprinkling and/or pouring as well as immersion.

Rather than call themselves "of Christ", they took on the name of a practice (baptism). [Their teaching on the subject differed]

Such can be seen also from the word Pentecost(al) ~ i.e., stressing the belief in the miracles done on this day (Acts 2), such as speaking in tongues etc. So this denomination, rather than calling themselves "of Christ", wears the name of a ____ Pentecostal church. This stresses their belief that the practice of miraculous tongue speaking can still be done.

It makes as much sense for a woman to take on the name of one particular practice of her husband/marriage (i.e., Jane Schoolteacher versus Jane Doe); as it does for a group of people to call themselves after a particular practice (and yet deny that practice as necessary to salvation).

Collectively, a group of Christians are the bride "of Christ"; NOT the bride of a practice or a teaching of Christ.

Hence, the church at Corinth was "of Christ"; the church at Ephesus was "of Christ"; and the church in Philippi was "of Christ".

The name individually is simply a Christian (meaning simply: Christ-like)

A collective of Christians are a congregation...."of Christ". Congregations were referred to as "churches of Christ" (see Romans 16:16).

The church is the bride; the bride wears the name of the husband.

Mark 8:38 - Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (see also Luke 9:26)

2 Tim. 1:8 - Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God...

Phil. 2:9-10 - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...

Psalm 111:9 - He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

8/13/2020

rdb