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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answered above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“...purifying their hearts by faith.”  How does faith come?  “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom.10:17).  What did the angel tell Cornelius?  “...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;   Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:13,14).  When is ones heart purified?  “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience [the heart] toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet.3:21).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s Son.

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

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

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

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

Yes, these are different designations for the same institution.

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

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

35. Did God have a family before Pentecost?

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

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

No.   Under the law of Moses, (the Old Testament) God’s people were the Jews.  They became members of God’s family by natural birth, being of the seed lineage of Abraham, and circumcision was their seal.  When Christ was crucified, He abolished the Old Testament law, notice:  “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (Col.2:14).  “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal.3:24,25).  Under Christ’s New Testament law, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3:28).  The Old Testament law was a covenant of circumcision, notice, “And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs” (Acts 7:8).  This was a physical difference, the Jewish males were circumcised, the Gentiles were not, but, under Christ’s law, “...neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (Gal.6:15).   “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom.2:28,29).  From this we see that the physical circumcision was no longer binding after Christ’s law came into effect.  Paul says plainly that under Christ’s law, one must have the inward circumcision of the heart.   Now, notice when and how this inward circumcision comes about: “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col.2:11,12).  Another point worth noting here in this same text is a few verses preceding this statement (verse 6), Paul said, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:”  Paul says clearly here that they had received Christ and were, “...complete in Him...” (v.10),  when (not before) they were buried in baptism thus receiving the inward circumcision, God cutting them loose from all past sins.  Baptism is the completing act of ones’ obedience which puts the believing penitent “...in Him...” (Gal.3:27; Rom.6:3-6).  One cannot become a member of God’s family apart from the church, because they are the one and the same as is pointed out in # 34.  This is a common misconception of most denominational preachers by which they teach that you ‘get saved’ and then you can join the church of your choice, a doctrine that is not taught, nor even hinted at in the Bible, because Jesus only built one church (Mt.16:18; Col.1:18; Eph.4:4).  First of all, the fact still remains that you cannot find a Baptist church in the Bible, nor a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon, etc., so the apostles could not have taught that one ‘gets saved’ first, and then should go join the church of their choice.  Second, when the believing penitent is baptized into Christ, he does not join a church because the Lord adds him to His church.  Notice in Acts chapter two, that the “about 3000 souls” who repented and were baptized for the remission of sins, became “such as should be saved” and were “added to the church” by the Lord Himself.  “...and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:37-47).     

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

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

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

On the day of Pentecost.  They received the baptism of the Holy Ghost as Jesus had promised it to them, and them only, (Jn.1:33; Lk.24:49; Acts 1:4-8).

39. Was John's Baptism, Christian Baptism?

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

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

40. Who Baptized Jesus Christ?

John the forerunner of Christ.

41. Did Jesus Christ have Christian Baptism?

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

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

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

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

Yes, Col.1:18.

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

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

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

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

Answered in previous question. (# 41)  

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

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

It is amply clear from Mr. Campbell’s own words that he did not receive Baptist baptism, but was baptized into Christ, and furthermore, Elder Luse agreed that the standard Baptist custom was unscriptural, thus Mr. Davis’ argument collapses! When anybody, anywhere, at anytime, obeys “from the heart” (Rom.6:17,18) as these did, understanding that faith, repentance, confession of Christ as the Son of God, and being buried in the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior in baptism, according to the apostolic precept (Acts 2:38), they are added to Christ’s church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47), and by doing this, the baptized penitents constitute the church of Christ because He said, “...where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt.18:20). The fact that Mr. Campbell and some others learned and obeyed the truth through an honest study of the scriptures in no way means that they founded some new denomination known as the “Campbellites,” because the word of God is the seed (Lk.8:11) of the kingdom, and since every seed brings forth after it’s own kind, this seed produces a Christian, and a Christian only, a member of the original New Testament church of Christ which is undenominational, because the original cannot be a division off of itself! The Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc., are all divisions of the original: different if name, doctrine, practice, and time and place of establishment. The Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul very clearly condemned division, notice: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” (1 Cor.1:10).

“... was he saved or lost?” He has not faced the judgment yet! (Heb.9:26; Rom.14:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:10).

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

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

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

Answered in # 15.

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

This is the ‘shuffling’ deception again.  Enoch was saved because, “...he pleased God,” (Heb.11:5).  David, John, Mary, the demoniac, and the thief on the cross all lived under the law of Moses.  David, who was a child of God under the law of Moses sinned, by committing adultery, and having Uriah killed.  Since he was a child of God (born of the seed lineage of Abraham) he had to repent of those sins, and pray for God’s forgiveness.  The thief, who was an erring child of God, repented, and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom.  Jesus forgave his sins, as He had done at other times (such as in Mk.2:5; Jn.8:1-11; Lk.7:48)  to some who were also erring children of God (Jews) under the law.  We today, under Christ’s law cannot be justified by the law of Moses (Gal.5:4).  (Abraham is explained in #’s 51 & 98.)  

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

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

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

The absurdity of this question is astounding!  “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”  The scripture was fulfilled when Abraham’s faith motivated him to do what God had commanded.  His faith was made perfect by his works (v. 22) thus James says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Js.2:22-24).  The whole purpose of these questions is to validate the doctrine of faith only!  You the reader can see that the Bible clearly says that it is not by faith only.  Which will you choose to believe?

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

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

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

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

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

Joel!   “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call” (Joel 2:32).  Now, notice what Peter (who had the keys of the kingdom, Mt.16:19) said on the day of Pentecost: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh... 21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22  Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:... 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  Peter specifically said that the events transpiring on that day was a direct fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, even quoting the scripture of calling on the name of the Lord.  How did Peter say that they were to call on the name of the Lord?  Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...”   Why did Peter say nothing about accepting Christ as your personal Savior?  Why did Peter not tell these people to pray the sinner’s prayer for the remission of sins?   Why do Baptist preachers loudly tell sinners to accept Christ as their personal savior, and to get down on their knees and pray the sinner’s prayer, when the Bible says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...?”  Notice also what Ananias, under explicit directions from Jesus Himself (Acts 9:10-15), told Saul to do: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts 22:16; see Acts 9:1-18).  Perhaps Mr. Davis avoided using this verse in these questions to prevent you the reader from understanding the fact that even after Saul had spoken to the Lord, fasted and prayed for three days, he still had his sins!  Obviously Mr. Davis didn’t want you to realize that Saul’s sins were washed away in baptism, and I’m sure he didn’t want you to see that “calling on the name of the Lord” is synonymous with, “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt.28:19).  

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

Yes he did, and yes I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            “What is the force of eis here? 

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

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

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

            “Acts 2:38 is a very important passage — the keynote of the New Testament teaching as to obedience to the Gospel.   For the first time inquiring sinners throng the inspired Twelve with the question, What shall we do? on their lips; and the answer is invested with the great significance of the first formal direction given by the apostles to inquirers.