I first saw this as a forum for free discussion of issues of importance to the Christian Church. I recently saw the referenced note in ine of the threads, and it has me confused and concerned. If the forum is intended to foster an anti-denominational viewpoint, it is not very clear about that. If that is the purpose, I would simply note that:

1. The Church, the eternal Body of Christ, is composed of members from all denominations throughout history that trust in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, by His one all-sufficient attonement on the cross.

2. That on matters that are not saving faith issues, good Christians can disagree and still be brothers and sisters in Christ. Still, with those differences in mind, it may not be such a bad thing for people to use denominations to find a fellowship where they are in agreement on the non-essentials as well as the essentials. It helps make meeting together for worship, truely worshipful.

3. While the differences between many denominations are not saving faith issues, in some cases they are. In a mobile society, reliance on non-denominational churches means that with every relocation you must go an a search for a congregation that not only relies on the Bible but also has interpreted the Bible consistent with your personal beliefs. If the Bible were easy to understand, why would we have so many denominations? At least within a denomination that has some consistent Bible-based theological positions, you can find out rather quickly if their understanding of the Bible is consistent with your own. Without doctrinal standards for a point of reference, the doctrine of the church can become the cult interpretation of the current senior pastor.

4. Creeds, confessions, catechisms, and other such standards are not the inspired Word of God, and are subordinate to the Bible. When they are based on the Bible, as they should be with several biblical references for every point of doctrine, they are useful as a summary of the beliefs of a church.

5. As you can see by the disagreements on every thread of this forum, a Christian Church that defines its doctrine as belief in the infallable Word of God; does not tell anyone much about what that means until you start to explain how you interpret the different passages of the Bible as they apply to the great historic questions that have been issues in the Church from the beginning. A pastor who does not want to be held accountable can be very happy in a non-denominational congregation, and preach whatever he feels needs to be said each week. Down that road you get the gospel according to _________ (fill in the pastors name).

I will be clear in stating that I believe Biblical Truth is most clearly understood as it is organized in the Apostles Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort. I am a 5 point Calvinist: Total depravity of fallen man, Unconditional election of those God has chosen to save, Limited attonement for the elect, Irresistable grace that will not allow any of the elect to resist the Holy Spirit, and Perseverance of the saints that will not allow any of the elect to fall away. I don't believe that because Calvin said so, but because I have studied the issues and believe that these points summarize the Word of God.

These standards were written because, without them, a persuasive preacher can lead many into misunderstanding even of the essentials of saving faith. The Canons of Dort are an example of this, in correcting an errors taught by a Theology professor in Leyden, who is now known by the name Arminius; and the errors that are addressed is Arminianism. That same set of errors seems to be common among the writers on this forum. The Canons were written in 1619 by the Synod of Dordrecht (I believe Calvin had died by then), and the issues are just a relevant today in helping to understand what the Bible teaches.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Answers

Barry, Barry, Barry,

This was by far your best dance yet. I'm going to rewrite this one statement directly from your post. Here goes in quotes.....

"I agree wholeheartedily in obeying the commands of Jesus and would question the validity of a persons claim of being born again if they did not follow the commands of Christ! But just because one is ignorant about Christ's command to be water baptized and does not follow this command does not mean they are not born again."

Barry, you are starting to confuse me about what YOU believe.

Either baptism has nothing to do with it....or it has everything to do with it.

You cannot say that you question a person's salvation when they reject a command of Jesus and then in the same breath say....it has nothing to do with salvation.

If it has nothing to do with salvation then you have no right to question the validity of their salvation AT ANY TIME.

Here it is....you agree that it is a command of Christ. However, Barry Hanson has decided that it is a command that does not have to be obeyed until some unforseen time in the future. Yet, if a believer refuses to be baptized, they are lost.

You are confusing me Barry. You really are. You would be more consistent to simply say, "It has nothing to do with it and baptism is not essential to salvation at all ever."

Instead, you have said that baptism is essential to salvation. But at what point Barry?? Two years after accepting Jesus?? Six months?? Five years?? At what point does the believer lose their salvation if they continue to reject water baptism??

And Barry, you confuse apples and oranges by bringing in the issue of a person "ignorant of the need of water baptism."

By your reasoning, Philip should have never said anything about baptism to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 so that the Eunuch could then claim ignorance of baptism. Because, by your reasoning, once he made baptism known to the Eunuch, in order for his claim of being born again to be valid, he would need to be immersed.

Really Barry, why must you separate grace and baptism?? Why must you call that which God gave us as an extension of grace a work?? Why can't you simply accept, rather than dance around the issue of "salvation by faith, in Christ, through baptism?? Why can't you put away your eye glasses of Augustinian Dualism and see the grace of God demonstrated in baptism, i.e, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6)?

If you can't do that, than at least be consistent. It either has nothing or everything to do with salvation.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Connie,

So what you are saying is, we can be saved without being obedient??

If you answer is "yes"....then you are a pure Calvinist.

Sammy Boy....

Good point!! People reject baptism as necessary for salvation because it is something "we do" and we are not saved by anything "we do."

However, we are then told.....we must believe (that's something I do).....and then we are told we must repent (that's something I do).....and even Barry said in another post....we must confess (again, something I do). Yet, they draw a line at baptism, the last in the steps I must take in order to accept the gift of salvation.

Again, it goes back to a theology plagued with Augustinian Dualism (i.e., nothing spiritual can come from a physical act).

Very good point Sammy Boy that shows the inconsistency of their position.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

The Paul didn't baptize issue is getting old, especially when it has been explained two or three times.

But....let's try it again.

There was division at the church of Corinth over WHO was baptizing. People were claiming that they were a little better because "Peter baptized" or "Apollos" baptized.

Paul did not say he had not baptized. In fact, he points out three families he had baptized.

Because Paul did not baptize does not mean he did not preach the necessity of baptism. It has been a very common practice throughout church history, and even today, to have someone other than the preacher baptize. In many churches (and even in the early church) the deacons did the immersion.

Paul's point is...."God did not send me to baptize (there are other people who can do that)....rather God sent me to PREACH the gospel."

While not everyone can preach, everyone can baptize.

In light of the divisions at Corinth, he was glad there were not a large number of people who were claiming superiority because "Paul had baptized them."

The only thing I'm trying to do Connie is to get you to read the Scriptures and let them say what they say. This as opposed to coming to the Scripture with a pre-conceived theology and then proof-texting to prove it.

In answer to a previous question, many of the people who frequent this board are a part of the "un-denominational" Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.

Just wanted you to know we were not afraid to be "pigeon holded." LOL!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

Are you not trying to mold people into your "faith only" doctrine?? Yet, you criticize me for being "unteachable?"

I could care less if you agree with me. But when you claim that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, you are wrong, because you conflict with what the Scriptures teach.

I'm going to say this again.....Martin Luther (1600's) was the first one to ever suggest that baptism had nothing to do with salvation.

That's a little late in the game for me. I prefer to take my gospel from the day of Pentecost, recorded for us in Acts 2...1600 years previous to Martin Luther.

If you choose Luther's gospel over the Jerusalem gospel, that's your choice.

As per the baptism of Jesus....I submit to you that yes, Jesus had to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness or He would have been disobedient to the Father's will.

Romans 6 teaches us that at baptism the old self dies and we commit ourselves to the will of the Father and to accomplish that in our lives.

The will of the Father for Jesus was the cross. At the baptism of Jesus He committed Himself to that will of the Father.

By the way, we also know that the baptism of John was not the same as Christian baptism.

In Acts 19, Paul meets some disciples who had only been baptized in John's baptism and He commanded them to be baptized again in the name of Jesus.

So, in fact, the baptism of John that Jesus submitted to, and the baptism into Christ that we are commanded to submit to are two different things....i.e., apples and oranges.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Dbvz.....

Two simple questions....

1) What creed did the New Testament Church adhere to??

2) What denomination did the people of the New Testament belong to??

I look forward to your answers.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

It is not for me, you, any person, or any church to decide who is or is not a Christian.

In fact, in the Christian Church/Churches of Christ we have a saying, "We are not the only Christians, but, we are Christians only."

The point being, we have no reason to doubt that there are others who have been obedient to the gospel of our Lord, who for whatever reason are in other faith groups.

All we can do is speak for ourselves. We are content to be called by they were called in the Bible. Not Baptist, Methodist, Lutherans, etc.....rather they were called Christians.

We are not a denomination. There is no denominational headquarters. Each church is autonomous, just as they were in the N.T.

Each church is governed by a plurality of Elders who are chosen from among the people.

The Elders are responsible for the spiritual oversight of the church. This comes from Acts 14 where it points out that Paul appointed Elders in each church.

I am an evangelist or preacher. Some in our brotherhood perfer the term "minister." Nothing wrong with that. I simply prefer the term "preacher."

I am not appointed to a position as in a denomination. I am interviewed by a congregation's Elders who then make a determination as to whether or not to present me to the congregation for approval. The congregation votes on whether or not to extend the call to the preacher.

The preacher is there until he choses to leave, or the Elders feel that it is wise for him to leave. In each case though, the local congregation decides, not a denominational headquarters.

All money collected by the congregation stays at the local level, except for money that is designated for missions. However, even the congregation makes a determination about which missions they will support.

We have the Lord's Supper each and every Sunday, just as the Church of the New Testament did and the church did for the first 1600 years.

When I refer to church history, I'm not saying that everything in church history was right. In fact, there was much that went wrong. The further they moved from N.T. times, the worse it got.

That is what the Restoration Movement is all about. To push aside all the errors, doctrines of men, and creeds, and RESTORE the church of the New Testament.

Be that what it may, there are some insights that can be gained from church history (which is what we must do). Church history helps us to understand the New Testament better if we can understand some of the things the church did or did not debate through the years.

For instance, until 1600, the church never debated the essentiality of baptism. It was always understood that baptism was for the forgiveness of sin and no one could be admitted to the church who had not been baptized. The mode was debated, but never the need.

That is what I mean by refering to church history. The fact that you keep bringing up the Catholic church has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, this ought to give you something to think on for awhile.

BTW.....we've grown quite a bit since your late statistic. The Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are the tenth largest relgious body in the United States and in fact, we are the only American born religous group. Every other group is a transplant from overseas.

So....if you are thinking we are a "fringe" group, you are not going to get off that easy.

If the Holy Spirit is truly leading you, then I have little doubt that you will come to appreciate the plea of the Restoration movement.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

John,

Thanks for pointing out my oversight, or better yet, my poor choice of description.

I meant to say, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are the only religious group to be born in the United States that adheres to the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Benjamin,

Quit apologizing for the length of your posts. Have you read Lee Saffold's?? (You know I'm kidding Lee.)

Anyway, you are quite write in acknowledging the influence of gnosticism.

However, it goes back even further than that to.....Platonic dualism.

It is a very easy study to see the influence of Greek dualism on both the church and the thinking of early theologians such as Augustine and then see how it progresses to Calvin, et. al., and then, to the "faith only" doctrine of today.

Thanks for at least acknowledging and understaning my point about dualism and its negative influence.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

dbvz,

I believe you attempted an answer at my first question.

However, I don't think you answered my second question. I really need you to do that in order to continue a discussion.

For what it's worth, I don't know that I disagree with anything you said in your final post, so don't think I'm simply trying to be argumentative.

In order to understand where you are coming from, I need as complete an answer as possible.

What differences I might have with your last post would involve secondary issues and not necessarily the topic at hand.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Can't help you John, I'm in full agreement with Lee.

The Ephesians passage does nothing to help your case in light of the purpose of the book of Ephesians. The book of Ephesians was written to heal division between Jew and Gentile. Jewish Christians were obviously still claiming some superiority due to works of the law (no doubt, an influence of the Judaisers).

When Paul says we are "saved by grace through faith"....he means as he does in Romans....."apart from works of the Law."

I think Dr. Jack Cottrell summed it up best in his book on the topic of baptism. Baptism is grace. Anything God told us we must do in order to accept his free gift of salvation is grace....because He didn't have to tell us anything.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

To finish up (I hit the submit button by accident)......

I'm immersed not in order to earn my salvation, I'm immersed in order to accept it.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

John,

Your reiteration is exactly right. The act of baptism is not a work, it is the acceptance of His grace.

It is no different than if I told you I had a million dollars to give you as a free gift and I told you to pick it up at my house at 2 PM.

In order to receive the gift, you would have to physically get in your car and drive to my house at 2 PM to receive the gift.

You could sit at home and believe all you wanted that you had the gift, but you really don't, because you did not act upon my request to receive the gift.

So again we come back to my premise, i.e., anything God told us we must do to accept His free gift is.....grace.

As far as Lee's reference to James, I can't speak for Lee. However, when I reference James the way he does, it is simply to point out the lack of evidence in Scripture for the doctrine of "faith only."

Your evaluation of James and Paul is actually quite accurate. Paul starts from the point of beginning the Christian life. James speaks of one who is already living the Christian life.

This plays into what you said about Ephesians 2, i.e., "saved by grace through faith (that's Paul)....in order to do good works" (which is what James emphasizes).

I would guess your difference with Lee would amount more to semantics than anything else.

There really is no conflict at all between the doctrine of grace and baptism.

Only those who have been indoctrinated with Augustinian Dualism seem to have a problem with it.

Thanks John!

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Brother Lee,

Am I missing something here?? I've looked John's last post over three times now and I can find nothing out of line Scripturally. I'm talking about the one he posted after I made the statement I couldn't help him because I agreed with you.

Your post seems mostly to do with his post before that. His last post was modified from that one...i.e., he modified his thinking.

I still contend that Paul and James are speaking from two different points in a person's life. Paul is speaking of becoming a Christian and James is speaking of the conduct of a Christian. While Paul speaks numerous times of the place of baptism, James never mentions it. Again, that makes sense since they are addressing two different points in a person's life. James has often been described as the "book of practical Christian living"...that is, how one lives their Christian faith. In fact, doctrinally speaking, it is one of the least doctrinal books of the N.T. focusing more on Christian living. (Granted, I think John was mistaken in using the terms "from the world's perspective"....but as I said...that's semantics.)

I also still see baptism as grace, for anything God tells me to do to be saved is.....grace.

Anyway, it just seemed to me that your post addressed John's post previous to the one where he said he had modified his thinking.

Like I said, I may be missing something...(which wouldn't be unusual for me).

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

First of all....Sammy Boy....AMEN!!!!

I'm pretty sure brother Lee will follow with another AMEN.

Lee....again I can't speak for John (where is he anyway??).....but I think John has come to see baptism as an extension of faith or grace.

I do not see baptism as a work, nor neither do I believe God does....at least Scripturally God never refers to it as such.

Baptism is my response of faith to the grace of God.

Thanks brothers!

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I'm telling you Lee and John.....as an outsider looking in on your discussion.....we are talking semantics here. The way I see it, you both are saying the same thing.

DBVZ......there is no way that sprinking can be acceptable because no where does the N.T. permit it.

The Greek work for "baptism" means "immersion" pure and simple. Pouring did not come into vogue before about 150 and sprinkling much later. It's not uncommon for man to depart from God's word.

To this you will answer....."Yes....but."

That's a terrible method of interpretation.

It comes down to this.....will you do what the word of God says....or will you rest your faith on the traditions of men??

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

DBVZ....you were right. There were no denominations in the first century church.

So....why does there need to be now??

BTW....somebody turn off the bold. LOL!

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

DBVZ....

As John as pointed out, even in the early church with the apostles still alive, false doctrine was creeping into the churches. In fact, most of our N.T. epistles are written to combat false doctrine, whether it be the Judaisers, Proto-Gnostics, or others.

So why should it surprise you that false doctrine was in the church in 150 A.D.?? In fact, in just 300 years after the establishment of the church in 33 A.D., there was a Pope. So it appears, the creeds didn't do a whole lot of good did they??

Here's an interesting historical fact for you to check out. Why did pouring come into place?? Simply, it came into being when people thought it convienent for "death bed" conversions. (Which at least shows people saw the necessity of baptism.)

However, it was understood, that as soon as a person was better, it was expected that they be baptized in the Scriptural way (i.e., immersion). In fact, they were considered what you might call "second class Christians" until they did.

Now here is where I find extreme contradiction in your thinking.

You want to cite the practice of 150 A.D. as acceptable, yet, you refuse to accept the fact that for the first 1500 years of church history, until Martin Luther, is was universally recognized (except by heretical groups such as the Gnostics) that baptism was essential to salvation. Why??

As per your refusal to be immersed....I will admit I am concerned.

You claim you want to be obedient to Jesus. Fine, was Jesus sprinkled or immersed??

There is only one N.T. baptism. If you want to rest your faith on the traditions of men, that is your decision.

But to me, that seems to be a dangerous position to hold on something that Bible is so very clear about.

As I thought, you said, "The Bible says that, but I believe....."

That is a dangerous method of interpretation.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie,

I want to get this straight. Paul was a believer, (saved in your view), but his sin was not washed away until he was immersed??

Therefore, one can be saved without having their sins washed away??

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

I guess Connie is going to have to find another "hero" now that Lee and John agree.

Where's Barry at???

Duane...."did I ever tell you your're my hero??"

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

DBVZ.....

It really doesn't matter what I think or what you think the word "baptism" means. You have no grounds for saying I'm interjecting my meaning.

Do this for me. Find a good unabridged dictionary and look up the word "baptism." A good dictionary will show the origin of the word.

In this case the word is "baptizo." After it gives you the Greek word it will then give you the meaning according to its origin....which in this case means...."to plunge, dip, or immerse."

Add to this, the fact of the witness of Scripture. "Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water." The eunuch "went down into the water, and came up out of the water."

There are Greek words for "sprinking" and "pouring" and those words are used in the N.T. in various places. But never in reference to the acts of one coming into Christ through baptism. That word is always......immersion.

That is fact. That is history. It cannot be changed. You may deny it. But it is fact.

The Catholic church has even readily agreed that "baptism in the first century church was always by immersion"...(See the footnotes in the Jerusalem Bible for Romans 6 which is a Catholic Bible.)(By the way, this is why the Greek Orthodox church has always immersed even infants.)

As far as "the heroes of the faith".....we are not talking about them. We are talking about us. We can't do anything for them either way. They are in God's hands. But we know what the truth is....and we must make a decision to obey or disobey.

As per the thief on the cross.....he lived under the Old Covenant. We live under the New.

Don't take my word for it. Find a dictionary that will give the origin of the word (i.e., the Greek word)....and see the definition it gives for that Greek word.

Greek is a very precise language. There is no concern about being mistaken.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie....

First, Jenny is the one who was offended. Not me. I'm a big boy....I can take it.

I simply saw your comments about my mother as someone, unfamiliar with the rule of debate, resorting to "ad hominems" in order to deter from the argument.

Trust me when I say, I'm not offended.

Second, back to the debate.

I don't know if I will be able to put this into words, but your last post about Paul demonstrates remarkably well what you and many other faith only people do.

You do what I call the equivalent of.....taking a novel.....reading one or two select passages....and then claiming you know the novel inside and out.

You did a fine job of exegeting Acts 9 except for one fatal interpretive error.

Let me share with you a standard, accepted rule of hermenutics. That's a "college word" for......rule of interpretation.

Here it is.....always interpret two similar passages in light of the more complete passage.

In this case, you give your faulty exegesis of Acts 9 because you fail to interpret it in light of the more complete account given by Paul when he was before the crowd in Acts 22.

Put those two passage together Connie for the complete account.

Now with that in mind, I ask the quesions again.....

1)Paul was a believer (saved in your view), but his sin was not washed away until he was immersed??

2) Therefore, a person can be saved without having their sin washed away??

What appears to be faith only passages must be interpreted in light of the biblical definition of saving faith, i.e., faith that moves to action.

That is why you have on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2....people asking, "What shall we do??" and Peter responds that they are to repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of sin.

Now Connie, one other thing you have failed to answer is this. The Greek of Acts 2 makes it very clear that "baptism is for (i.e., in order to obtain, i.e., foward looking)....the forgiveness of sin."

If Peter did not mean "baptism for the forgiveness of sin"....than exactly what does he mean??

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie,

The effects of your apologies are nullified when you make statements such as "those who have been hateful to me."

Again, you have bought the spirit of the age that says "Disagreement equals hate."

Brother Rees....

You can do what you want (you asked if it was OK)....but I reserve the term brother or sister for those who have been obedient to the gospel of Christ as pertains the act of "coming into Christ."

I understood what Lee was saying from the very beginning.

I'm sure you know of the tradition concerning the Apostle John and false teachers. There is an early church tradition that states that if a false teacher came into a public place where John was, he would immediately leave.

The early church took false doctrine seriously. By some's definition of love, the apostle Paul was a "hate monger" especially when he referred to the Judaisers in Ephesians as "dogs".....and most especially when he wished them to be consigned to hell in Galatians 1.

I think in light of the early church attitude towards false doctrine....we have been most gracious.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

I have erred!!! (See Connie....I can say it!)

Paul referred to the Judaisers as "dogs" in Philippians.

My bad!!

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie....

I don't believe in red letter editions of the Bible. That's from man.....not God.

If one were to red letter the words of Jesus.....the whole Bible would have to be red since..."ALL Scripture is inspired by God."

Acts 9 no where indicates that the receiving of the Holy Spirit was synonomous with the event of the scales coming of his eyes. Nor is this found in the more complete account in Acts 22.

Also, you still have presented no answer to Acts chapter 2 concerning the purpose of baptism being for the remission of sins (which by the way.....is also in complete harmony with Acts 22).

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Yeah....what John said to DBVZ.

(How's that John for cutting down on megs??)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie,

I prayed about it last night....and the Holy Spirit enlightened me and taught me that you indeed were wrong.

Sorry.....I have to stick with what the Holy Spirit says.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Benjamin....

As you probably know....the Mormon church immerses "for the forgiveness of sins." (Something I'm sure they picked up from Sidney Rigdon's association with A. Campbell.)

Do I then accept as a brother someone who has been immersed in the Mormon church??

Based on their understanding of who Jesus is...I would hope you would answer "No."

If your answer is "yes".....then in my opinion, there are deeper problems here.

If your answer is "no"....then you concede that there is a certain level of "knowledge" that one must have in order that the baptism be efficacious??

For you, then, what is that certain level of "understanding" or "knowledge" one must have before they are immersed??

I have no interest in being called a "Superhero" by Connie....and I rather resent the idea that you refer to Lee as "combative." Lee may be aggressive, and well equipped....but I'll go in his camp any day as opposed to the camp of "milk toastness."

Connie has been presented plenty of evidence, and still chooses to be disobedient to the Word (in the name of being led by the Spirit).

It seems you are doing your best to "squeeze" her into the brotherhood.

I'm more interested in seeing her, or anyone else, conform to the clear teaching of Scripture on the issue.

As one person I deeply respected said, "Often who you are baptized by....is what you are baptized into."

Like I asked though.....do you feel there is any level of "knowledge" necessary at baptism....and if so......what is it??

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Benjamin....

And for the record.....I said the decision about the term sister was "my choice." I told you that you or anyone else can do what they want and call them what you want. You can call the Pope your brother if you want to.

Your statement that "Danny doesn't think, therefore, I'm not going to do it"....was incorrect in the subtle way it suggests that you are the "good guy" and I'm the bad judgmental guy.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Benjamin....

Why would you feel I'm not serious??? I am sincerely interested in knowing what you consider the minimum amount of knowledge is necessary in order for one's baptism to be efficacious??

Also, I'm not interested in catching flies.

John....

Are you serious about that "Christian Standard" article?? Could you please cite the year and month. I need to get a copy of that.

Also John, as per Connie.....we are not talking about someone who is coming to a better understanding.......we are talking about someone who has their mind made up and refuses to be obedient to the gospel (i.e., batism for the remission of sins). Biblically, there is no other baptism but this one.

Well....let me rephrase that. There was another baptism and Paul told the people who had that baptism (i.e., John's baptism) to be immersed in the name of Christ.

Now I want to ask you John, if those folks would have said..."Oh Paul....there's no need for that. Our baptism by John was fine...and besides that...we believe in Christ. If that baptism was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for us"....I ask you John.....what do you suppose Paul's response would have been???

Hypothetical?? Sure. But give me your best logical conclusion.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Benjamin....

What you refer to as "arguing"....I refer to as trying to understand.

RE Point #2: That's a "straw man." No one said a word about a catechism. However, I do think there is some merit to looking closely at the Great Commission. The order of the Commission of Jesus is....."Teach....baptize.....teach some more." (I laid that out rather simplistically.) I place a great deal of emphasis on that first "teach." Seldom do people "pop" forward as you know. And to be honest, it happens very little to me as most of the baptisms I do are during the week. I see it as silly to emphasize the importance of baptism to a person's salvation....and then tell them to wait till Sunday. Don't you agree?? This usually follows an extensive time of teaching.

RE: The point about "what if" concerning Connie. To be honest, I've never in 18 years had this problem....because I make sure people have a proper understanding of baptism either before I immerse them or they place their fellowship with the congregation. I've had people "pop" forward during an invitation that I did not expect. When they came forward, I stated to them in private that I would like some time to talk with them about their decision. After discussing the church's beliefs in detail, they made the decision not to unite with the church and in fact went elsewhere. (These of course are always people coming from a denominational background who were just looking for another denomination. This has never happened with the "unchurched.") Therefore, I really can't relate to what you are asking me about Connie's situation.

Occassionally, I've had someone from a denominational background come in, I explain in detail everything, I ask them if they agree....they do.....so they unite with the congregation. Then, some time later they say...."I didn't know you believe that".....and we had gone over it in detail. At that point, I wonder if the doctrine is just a smokescreen for some other reason that they are leaving. Hard to say.

RE #4....I've tried to explain NUMEROUS things to Connie. It is very difficult to deal with the "Yes....but" method of interpretation.

RE #5....We don't know everything Paul discussed with the folks in Ephesus that were re-immersed. Based upon our knowledge of Paul, I think it would be incorrect to assume that he did not have a knowledge concerning their belief in Christ. Don't you??

RE #6....An apology wasn't necessary. But I did not like the way it came across as "Because Danny...."

RE...My asking you about the Mormon situation....was absolutely not to discriminate against you.

If I have any God-give abilities, it is to attempt to make people to carry their positions to their logical conclusions.

Based upon the survey John just posted....(to which I was not even aware)......it is important to know just how willing people are to carry some of their beliefs all the way through. For a large number, sadly, in our brotherhood.....they have carried it the point of allowing a Mormon into the fellowship.

You brought in the point about "knowledge" before baptism. I simply wanted to find out to what degree you went. The fact is, as laid out by you......is that....there is a degree of knowledge necessary in your mind, and I agree with your approach.

As you can see from John's survey....the "knowledge" needed is obviously very small for a good percentage of our "brethren."

As our movement has been for quite a while, it appears we are in the "dumbing down" mode.

As I said Benjamin....I was not being argumentative....I was just trying to understand.

Isn't that what this forum is about??

Respectfully in Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Thanks John....(I think!)

That was depressing at 5:30 in the morning.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Connie..

You are lying!!! There I said it. You had no intention of ever changing your mind about a thing!!!

You have had pages of evidence put up to you. In ALL of this you still have NEVER responded to the meaning of Acts 2:37-38....not once.

Your only answer to anything is whining, crying, and accusing people of chauvinism.

If you are not Nelta...then you are someone an awful lot like her. You got your mind made up and you came on here to try to bring a group of Bible believing Christians to your false "faith only" doctrine.

Your only method of determining someone's relationship with the Lord is....."how sweet they are." You even extended your right hand to someone who believes the white race are the chosen because you felt sorry for him and he was sweet.

My dear....if anyone on this forum has demonstrated a lack of evidence of the Spirit in their life it is you....for your desire is not to seek truth but to seek your own evil desires clothed in the whitewash of "sweetness."

Lee has lost more Bible knowledge that you will ever have.

My honest desire....is that people will quit wasting their time with you and "brush the dirt" off of their feet.

I had already come to that conclusion. But I will not stand by and watch you do one of two things....1) Falsely accuse a brother in Christ; 2) make absolutely riduculous statements without being confronted.

Connie, my prayer now is for you to repent of the evil in your heart.

In fact, the internet is loaded with people who believe you do. And....as Brother Darrell Combs suggested weeks ago....why aren't you there??? Your being here suggests....1) You are here to cause dissension and promote false doctrine; 2) You admit....we have the truth.

My "brethren" I'm sure will attack me for such a strong stance......but I trust they will reread the Scriptures about our attitude towards those who cause foolish controversies and division by their false doctrine.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Lee.....

Oh that the Christian Church had more like you!!!

I've often said....if trends continue....I'll end up preaching in the non-instrumental Church of Christ before I retire.

Yes Lee....I'd give up the instrument in a heartbeat to be in a doctrinally sound church. Would you be a reference for me???

Fortunately for me, including my state of mind.....I'm in a good, solid, wonderful church right now. Longest honeymoon I have ever had.

God bless you Lee!!!

"Finally my brother......be strong in the Lord."

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Benjamin....

I think what a person believes about their baptism is important. Evidently Paul did as well in Acts 19.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Benjamin...

That was disappointing to say the least. You apologize, which I had already told you was unnecessary...and then after that....the "ad homimens" flow.

You say, "I hope you are not invoved in cross cultural ministry.".....in fact, I have been for years and have done quite well in both the black community and in Jamaica. But....that had nothing to do with anything.

And then, to go so far as to call your brothers and sisters in Christ "swine"....is unbelievable......especially in light of the fact that you were so willing and so fast to call someone who has not been obedient to the gospel, "Your sister."

For somone who prided themselves on being a "fly catcher"....that certainly crossed the line.....especially as regards my wife. How would you react if somone just called your wife a "swine?" And don't bother with a "depends on what the meaning of "is...."is" discussion. You heart was evident in your words.

However, I'm not going to respond in kind Benjamin. I'm going to trust here that when you wrote this, your were tired, or had a bad day, or something. (Maybe too much sushi.)

Because to be honest....it was sorry.

If you want to be another in a long line of somone who takes their ball and goes home, fine. A forum is a battlefield of ideas......a place to keep our minds sharp and to cause us to think.

I believe NOW.....you owe some people an apology....for you make terrible statements about people you do not know.

And as far as my wife and I are concerned.....I trust a letter of needed financial support will not come from you until that apology is given.

I challenged you.....I called your arguments into question.....I questioned your logic.....but never did I question your ministry in Hong Kong and never did I stoop to calling you a name.

If you will reread the "abstenance thread".....there were some harsh arguments exchanged....but never "ad hominems" between me and the other men.

Duane Scwingel will always be a good friend, and I have a better appreciation and understanding for some of the things Nate Graham had said. We may not agree. But so what. They are good men. Never would I call them "swine."

By the definition of the pure rules of debate and rhetoric......you lost Benjamin.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

DBVZ....

Help me in clarifying your position......

If someone came to you and stated they wanted to become a Christian.......what would you tell them???

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Hey Everyone......

This thread is getting way too long and taking forever to load.

So.....I started a continuation thread called...."Salvation Issues....Cont."

Let's start posting there.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

So, is this forum intended to be anti-denominational?

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

The basic premise of the Restoration movement is that the fragmentation of Christianity into sects and denominations, which was even happening in Paul's day, is wrong and a sin, and is against Jesus' will that we all be one. Therefore our plea is to drop all those things that divide us, the loyalty to sectarian and denominational creeds, unbiblical organizational structures, etc., and return to the primitive New Testament church design, before division began. We take our faith from the Bible and only the Bible, believing that it and it alone should be the pattern for Christian worship, practice and unity.

(Now don't get me wrong, I believe there are great truths in some of the creeds, and some of the early ones, namely the Apostles' and Athanasian creeds, helped keep the church safe from grevious error, but a majority of them are points upon which Christians divide themselves from each other, not from cults.)

Perhaps some of these quotes (in alphabetical order after Paul) can give you a better understanding of our plea and desire, as it was expressed as the deepest desire of many of the greatest men of God throughout history.

WHAT SOME PROMINENT MEN OF GOD HAVE THOUGHT CONCERNING DENOMINATIONALISM:

---

THE APOSTLE PAUL (I Corinthians 1:10,12-13; 3:3-7, 21-23)

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. ... One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ...

"You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. ...

"So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God."

---

JOHN BUNYAN, Author of Pilgrim's Progress, Grace Abounding, The Holy War, and numerous other books. He spent nearly 14 years of his life in prison because he would not cooperate with the religious establishment of England. Pilgrim's Progress was a landmark in English literature. Next to the Bible it was the most widely read book in the English language until the 19th century. (From, John Bunyan's Complete Works, By Gulliver, page 818.)

"Since you would know by what name I would be distinguished from others, I tell you I would be and hope I am a Christian; and choose, if God should count me worthy, to be called a Christian, a believer, or other such name as should be approved by the Holy Ghost. And as for those factious titles of Ana-Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent or the like, I conclude that they come neither from Antioch nor from Jerusalem, but from hell and Babylon, for they tend to division. You know them by their fruits."

---

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, One of the founders of the Restoration Movement (from the Christian System, Gospel Advocate Co., 1974, pp. 82-83).

"The Christian party are 'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and on Jesus the Messiah, himself the chief corner-stone," and therefore on the Christian Scriptures alone. Now, all other parties that are in any way diverse from the Christian party are built upon some alloy -- some creed, formula, or human institution supplementary to the apostolic laws and customs. This alloy is what makes the party. So many items of the apostle's doctrine and so many notions of Calvin combined produce the compound called Calvinism. So many items of Luther's opinions, compounded with the apostles teaching, make Lutheranism. And so many portions of Wesley's speculations, compounded with certain portions of the New Testament, make the compound called Methodism. The Christian ingredients in these compounds, so far as they are not neutralized by the human alloy, make the Christians among them; while the alloy makes the sectary. Take away all that belongs to the founder of the sect in all these parties, and they would certainly coalesce and form one community.

"It behooves all men, then, who wish to be approved of the Lord at his coming, to be up and doing to purge and cleanse the Christian profession from every root and branch of sectarianism, and to endeavor to destroy those destructive sects that have been a sort of Pandora's box to the human race; that have filled the profession with hypocrites, the world with infidels, and retarded for so many centuries the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles to the Christian faith."

---

M. R. DE HAAN, Radio Bible Class. Preached over the full network of the Mutual Broadcasting System and by Short Wave around the world. (From his message which is also in print - "The One True Church - The Body of Christ.")

Never once in the Bible do we have any of these local assemblies calling themselves after men's names, or names to identify their doctrines, or practices, or creeds, such as Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist. These were later inventions. Neither did they, we said, call themselves after men and human leaders no matter how godly they may have been, or what valuable contribution they might have made to the cause. In vain do we seek for human names applied to the churches, whereas today we talk of Calvinistic and Armenian, call them Lutheran, or Mennonite, or Wesleyan. Paul himself very severely warns against the spirit of carnality which says 'I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas and I am of Paul. He wanted Christ to have the preeminence in the church at all times. He wished to emphasize the UNITY OF ALL BELIEVERS, and not call attention to their differences, by the use of other names.

"We speak of this and that denomination as a church, but there is no Bible ground for such a classification... As in the days of Jesus, men have made the Word of God of none effect through their traditions and so have added forms and rituals and ordinances and offices and committees and programs, which are not only NEVER taught in Scripture but actually defeat the very purpose of the Church."

---

M. R. DE HAAN, Radio Bible Class. (From "508 Answers to Bible Questions," page 143.)

"Question: Is there any foundation in the Bible for different denominations?

Answer: I am of the firm opinion that while there are many of God's faithful children in all denominations, that nevertheless sectarianism and denominationalism is sin.

---

Dr. D. MARTIN LLOYD-JONES, Anglican Minister, Westminster Chapel, London

"Now we are all agreed, surely, that the Christian Church should be one, that she was meant by God to be one. And therefore, we must agree, further, that it is a tragedy that division ever entered into the life of the church. In addition we must all regard schism as a grievous sin. That is common ground."

---

MARTIN LUTHER, (From, What Luther Says - an Anthology, by Ewald M. Plass, Vol.11, page 856, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo.-1959.)

"I ask that men make no reference to my name and call themselves, not Lutherans but Christians. What is Luther? After all, the doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for anyone. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How, then, should I, a poor evil-smelling maggot sack have men give to the children of Christ my worthless name? Not so, dear friends. Let us cast out party names and be called Christians after Him whose doctrine we have."

---

JOHN MacARTHUR, JR., Pastor of the Grace Community Church of Panorama City, California, and well known radio Bible teacher. (From his book, The Church The Body of Christ)

There is no scriptural justification for all the present divisions of the church. There were no divisions denominationally in the New Testament. In fact, all church divisions are explicitly contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. The whole intent of Christ, in forming the body, was that believers may be one, not divided into little parts.

---

CHARLES H. SPURGEON, Acclaimed by Baptists and many others to be one of the greatest preachers of modern times. (From, The Spurgeon Memorial Library, Vol.1, page 168.)

"I am not particularly anxious about my own name, whether that shall endure forever or not, provided it is recorded in my Master's book. George Whitefield, when asked whether he would found a denomination, said, 'No; Brother John Wesley may do as he pleases, but let my name perish; but let Christ's name last forever.' Amen to that! Let my name perish; but let Christ's name last forever... for I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ's name last forever. I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone."

---

JOHN WESLEY, (From, The Works of John Wesley, in 7 volumes, by John Emory, and published by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1831, Vol.5, page 240.)

"I say to those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but if it be buried in eternal oblivion..."

---

WATCHMAN NEE, a great Chinese preacher and writer whose books have now been published in many languages and countries. He died while imprisoned by the Communist Government of China. (From his book, The Normal Christian Church Life)

No worker may exercise control over a church or attach his name to it, or the name of the society he represents. The divine disapproval will always rest on the 'church of Paul,' or 'the church of Apollos,' or 'the church of Cephas.' In the history of the Church it has frequently happened that when God has given special light or experience to any individual that individual has stressed the particular truth revealed or experienced, and gathered people round him who appreciated his teaching, with the result that the leader, or the truth he emphasized, has become the ground of fellowship. Thus sects have multiplied. If God's people could only see that the object of all ministry is the founding of local churches and not the grouping of Christians around any particular individual, or truth, or experience, or under any particular organization, then the forming of sects would be avoided.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

dbvz:

I don't know if just anyone can answer that, or if it must be the originators of the forum.

I feel that it's not anti-denominational, but differing viewpoints will be expressed here.

I am not against any denomination, per se, just the errors each denomination may fall into.

On one of the other threads, a discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminianism was touched on. If I am not mistaken, Calvin and Arminius disagreeed on only two of the seven points they addressed.

I believe, if I remember correctly, those two points were predest- ination and 'eternal security'. Even Paul and Peter disagreed on a couple of issues, but that didn't mean either was not a Christian.

I feel a lot of error crept into the church before the printing press was invented, and when people could read the Scriptures themselves, they realized those errors. The thing is, many of the churches which broke away from Rome kept some of the errors.

HOWEVER, I believe Christians can disagree on less important things than the main precepts of Christianity without separating, but if someone says one can be saved apart of the death of Christ as a propitiation for our sins, or if they don't believe he was resurrected, or if they don't believe He was born of a virgin, then we should separate from them.

'Eternal security' or 'perseverence of the saints' or pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation are not matters to separate over.

As I read the posts on a couple of those threads, The paradoxes of predestination/free will and faith/works was evident from both camps, but with slightly different emphases.

There are SOME things we are not going to know this side of Heaven.

We should speak the truth in love, and live at peace with all people, insofar as it depends on us, and correct others with humility, lest we also are tempted. And BEWARE OF PRIDE.

I personally prefer a fellowship that is non-denominational, but you apparently prefer a denomination - - yours. That's fine, but are you suggesting that no one else could possibly be a Christian if that one doesn't belong to that particular denomination? The Roman Catholic Church teaches that. It reminds me of the joke about the person who died, went to Heaven, and met Peter at the Golden Gate. (Not Biblically correct, but this is a joke.) Peter invited him in, and took him on a tour of Heaven, pointing out the different denomina- tional groups (still separated!): Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, etc.

Suddenly they came to a very high brick fence, and the new arrival asked: "Who is behind that big fence?" Peter responded: "Oh, those are the Baptists (my former denomination); they think they're the only ones up here."

The 'unity of the believers' is not some condition imposed by an ecclesiastical group; it is the 'oneness in Christ' which results from our being born into God's family by regeneration. That is achieved only by accepting Christ's substitutionary death for each of us and our sins on the cross (stauros - - I don't care).

I lnow this oneness is possible, because our church exhibits it. our members come from all different denominations, or none, but have to give a personal testimony of conversion or belief in Christ (before the Board of Elders) to become members of the local, indigenous church which we are.

The Roman heirarchy gradually materialized over a period of 300 years.

I KNOW I give the impression that I don't like the Catholic Church, but I have the same misgivings about much of Protestantism.

I have CHRISTIAN friends who belong to many different denominations, and some from groups which have no denominational affiliation. But they are Christians, because they have accepted Christ as savior and Lord.

Would you hold yourself against us because we aren't members of your denomination? Is that 'truth' or is that 'pride'?

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

dbvz:

Oops! That's what I get for not printing out a thread andreading it before posting!

I erroneously attributed to you someone else's comments. I wanted to get this written immediately. I am going to sign off and read the posts carefully. I am sorry I didn't do that first.

Also, I see where I used hyphens at the middle of a couple of words where I shouldn't have.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

dbvz:

I hate to post three times in a row, but I thought I'd mention that I have a son who graduated from Calvin College in Grand Rapids.. I was brought up in a Free Will/Baptist home, but I've read Calvin's 'Institutes of the Christian Religion'. (Two huge volumes.) Have you read it? It was thirty (plus) years ago that I read it, and I must have misplaced it when we last moved, cause I can't find it.

Calvin College has a couple of professors who have wandered from the faith. This is what happens with denominations, I feel. Non- denominational churches meeting in homes was the model of the New Testament.

Ours is a large church, but has remained true to Biblical principles since it was founded 40 plus years ago. It isn't named after a 'saint'- - even a living one! Its name is 'Trinity'.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Dbvz

I believe you bring up a very good point.

Although I am not Calvinist and we would disagree on different issues this does not necessarily mean we are not brothers in Christ. I believe there are basic Christian principles that must be understood however. For instance, the Godhead which gives way to the virgin birth, Jesus' sinless and substitutionary life and death, and the resurrection. These seem to me to be the very basics. The questions you raise particularly concerning this message board is important. Initially I was unsure about my position concerning people who add to Christ's atonement because it comes across so subtly. But after much discussion realized that for many of these people they have put their trust in their own obedience and not Jesus. To me this is a digression from the Gospel message and brings into very question Jesus' substitutionary death. Why would Christ have to die if we could just work our way into heaven? Why die such a horrible death if water baptism is the answer? Even if it is only part of the answer, it still detracts from Christ's sacrifice, it was insufficient. It takes the work of the sinner to complete the sinless life of Christ. What Jesus is incapable of completing we are supposed to complete via obedience (?). I cannot find this line of reasoning nowhere in the Holy Scriptures. Actually I have no problem saying that one may trust in Jesus at their water baptism, but it was not the obedience of water baptism that saved. Such was Paul's testimony, he called on the name of the Lord while being baptized. Unfortunately, my water baptism is null and void! Why? Because I did not BELIEVE that it was through my action of obedience to water baptism that I was born again. In fact today I am still a lost sinner because I continue to simply claim Jesus as my Lord simply by grace through faith.

Dbvz, you may wish to call the people on this message board "brothers in Christ" believe me they will not reciprocate the sentiment, we are lost sinners because we refuse to believe in water baptism, or at least Jesus command to be water baptized. This, however is not the case, as you may well agree. I believe wholeheartedly in obeying the commands of Christ and would question the validity of a persons claim of being born again if they did not follow the commands of Christ! But just because one is ignorant about Christ's command to be water baptized and does not follow this command does not mean they are not born again. I was born again at age 6 and water baptized at age 9. I remember my salvation experience like it was yesterday and without a doubt knew I was born again. No amount of Scripture twisting will change this fact.

Finally, if we were to believe that one cannot be a part of Christ's Body because they belong to a particular denomination no one would be a part of Christ's Body. From the Gospels it is apparent that Christians began gravitating towards central locals and adhering to particular individuals who presented the Gospel. If any group has a claim to Biblical authenticity it would have to be the Roman Catholic Church. They claim direct lineage through Peter, which makes sense to my natural mind. Except any name you put over the door of your Church is going to provide distinction and will exclude some. Case in point, I believe that Jesus' death is sufficient, I was not born again at water baptism. I have just made a distinction and according to this message board am on my way to hell (?). Is that the Church Jesus began? Definitely not.

I could go on and on and I really am not into posting such large messages, but the points you raise are very important and I wanted to address them briefly. Until we talk again, may the Love of Jesus Christ keep you.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Oh, Goody ! Barry is back! ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Danny,

I'll say it, even if Barry won't: It has nothing to do with salvation; obedience, yes; salvation, no.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie and barry:

The question, then, is this: Does obedience have anything to do with salvation? Or is salvation simply thrust upon us, with no regard to obedience? Do we become saved if we refuse to obey? not just obey in baptism -- obey in ANYthing?

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Hi, All,

I have repented; I confess; I believe; I was 'baptizo-ed' (I don't know the Greek past tense - - immersed - - twice, once before believing and once after), I gather together with other believers to become edified, etc. I don't like to speak this way, because I don't want to fall from my pride. I consider THOSE 'filthy rags', but the death and shedding of blood on the cross by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ does it all. One thing is salvation; the rest are the rest - -works, including baptism.

In your first itemized point, you say that: "The Church, the eternal Body of Christ, is composed of members from all denominations throughout history that (sic - who?) trust in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, by His one all-sufficient atonement on the cross."

So it seems that you are not anti-denominational.

John Wilson posts immediately after and lists many people from all different denominations who DON'T think denominations are O.K. - - and they are all from different denominations. The existence of denominations or no denomination are not sinful, other than the fact that we are all sinful, saved or not. The thing that is sinful is the lack of a 'oneness of spirit', and the lack of a loving spirit among believers, no matter what their denomination.

My question: who decides which denomination are we all to belong to? The Roman Catholic church claims a lineage from Peter. We all have our foundations in the early church.

The verses the Catholics cite are where Jesus says to Peter: "Thou art Peter (petra - a small rolling stone) and on this rock (petros - a large, immovable rock - Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There are two different Greek words used here, and before the printing press was invented and before King James commissioned the translation of the Bible, they could fool people into believing ALMOST whatever they said.

Something I would love to ask is: what churches do you two belong to?

I know you probably don't want to be 'pigeonholed' by revealing that here, as I have freely done, but I'm still curious.

As I've stated before, my mother would rather have been a Baptist than a Christian, because one of her ancestors baptized Roger Williams, and she was enamored of the idea of 'separation of church and state', which he was also involved in. (Oops! ended with a preposition!)

This is the kind of thing Paul wanted to avoid, so he refused to baptize, except for one household. It seems to me that if baptism were a requirement for salvation that Paul, of all people, would have insisted on baptizing, and would have talked about it incessantly, (as you seem to!)

The churches joined in denominations for worldly reasons, not for reasons of faith. While a pastor could definitely lead an uninformed congregation astray - - all of the congregations are led astray all the time because most Christians sitting in the pews simply do not know what the Scriptures say, and trust the pastor or the heirarchy to tell them the truth. (BIG mistake!) The biggest defense against being led astray is to know yourself what the Bible says.

I've noticed in a couple of posts a subtle little 'putdown' - - the 'cult' reference concerning non- or inter-denominational churches.

The rise of the Bible-believing and teaching churches of this century are a testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit. I think He has left a lot of the denominational churches, and even Jesus might not be welcome in some of them. I am SURE Jesus would condemn many for their Pharisaical attitudes.

We should avoid issues which do not edify, and stick to the positive message of the Gospel.

In Him, by virtue of His death and resurrection

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Danny:

I don't see how anything I said could be considered not from the Scriptures or from a pre-conceived notion. The Scriptures have a few issues which even the most learned cannot resolve. I have used only the Scriptures, for the most part, to prove anything I've said.

Before ever stepping into a church after our conversions, we read the Scritures voraciously. I am so thankful to God for that training, with only the Holy Spirit instructing us (He's the BEST teacher).

You have the pre-conceived notions, and are trying to mold people into what you want them to be. God is my Potter, and I am His clay.

I think you may have lost the attribute of teachableness, which is a necessity for EVERY Christian. We don't want to be swayed by every wind of doctrine, nor heap to ourselves teachers, but you seem to have your doctrine embedded in concrete, and everyone who doesn't agree with you on every point is wrong.

Those words may be interpreted as being angry, but I feel no anger in saying them. I want to say them with an attitude of humility.

Let us seek God's wisdom, and exhibit a oneness of spirit, if not a oneness of doctrinal details. I pray I have not caused discord on any of these threads.

In Him

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Perhaps the reason I gave for Paul's not baptizing WAS incorrect. There was another error I made on another thread, which I wanted to correct, but I've forgotten what that was. (Early Alzheimer's)

But that was not really the main point anyway; the point was the anti- denominational/denominational discussion (which actually can be addressed patially by what Paul meant about the churches needing to be rooted in Christ, not Cephas (Peter!), nor Paul, nor Apollo. (I knew that before I went to Corinth and Acrocorinth in Greece, by the way.) If we were not to be rooted in those three, I'm sure we are not to be rooted in Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Wesley, et al.

Of course I have listened and learned and changed my mind (or not) about different aspects of the Scriptures, as I am prepared to do now, if what is being proposed does not contradict the clear message of Scripture, as is the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Jesus was baptized, as you say: to fulfill all righteousness (and I just remembered that that is where I was wrong in a previous post - - I said it was to be an example for us.) but he was not a sinner, so what did baptism save Him from?

In other places it does mention baptism as being a figure of our conversion with symbolism being involved. (Being raised from death to life, etc...)

By the way, as a woman, I hesitate to be instructing a man on these issues, but I do not stand in the congregation and correct the pastor.

I'm sure glad there is 'no more Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female', but we are one in Christ!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Yes, I know that John's baptism was the baptism of repentance and that the ones Paul spoke to were re-baptized. How long had they been believers? I KNOW from my personal experience that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation, because I was saved for almost three years before being immersed. I had been baptized into the 'Living Water' - - Jesus, prior to the baptism in physical water.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

I John 5: 11 & 12:

And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Ok Folks,

Here is a little illustration I pulled from the Summit Theological Seminary Website. It is from George Faull's "The Gospel Unashamed" newsletter.

Read it carefully. Think about what it says, and then see if your resolve to follow Calvin, Luther, Augustine and all their ideas & creeds is still as strong :

< He refused to wear the U.N. outfit, so they threatened to kick him out. He said, "I swore allegiance to my country, not the United Nations. The U.N. blue symbolizes to me a shift of allegiance from the United States for whom I swore an oath, to the U.N. I swore an oath to the United States Constitution and I believe there is a fundamental difference in the U.N. Charter."

In this, the young man is right as the U.N. Charter says the U.N. has supremacy. Al Gore recently sent remarks to families of 15 servicemen who died in Iraq from friendly fire as men who died in the service of the United Nations. It is said that President Bill Clinton sought approval for U.N., not the American representatives, before sending troops into Haiti in 1993. The young man was able to distinguish his allegiance.

Religiously many men cannot do so. They swore allegiance in their hearts to follow Jesus Christ. Instead they work for a denomination and follow their orders. They work under a denominational hierarchy and promote their agenda to the rejection of Jesus' own authority.

The Bible is our constitution..the only rule of faith and practice. There is a "fundamental difference" between the creeds of men and the Word of God. There is a clear cut contradiction in loyalty to a church and loyalty to Christ. May we be as committed to Christ as Michael New is to his country. He didn't want to die for the New World Order but was willing to die for America. May we be willing to die for the Lord and His Church but not willing to put on the uni- form of a sectarian or apostate denomination that recognizes the traditions and commandments of men.>>

George, I hope you don't mind me using your material.

(Personally, the only Calvin I want to be associated with is the one whose name appears on the waistband of my shorts.)........ :-)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Pardon me, I erred when I equated the Apostle's Creed with the Didache, or "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles." The two are not the same. However, I did not err as to the date. Found at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library: "the Apostles' Creed ... has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament."

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

When I quote Scripture, I usually put what is Scripture, ALONE in single quotes, unless I'm quoting what someone says; then I use double quotes.

But, being human, I may have erred. I know you have no such problem. What you are trying to do is trick me into saying the word 'alone' combined with the word 'faith' show up together in Scripture.

The verses which indicate that ONLY faith is required, i.e. that simply faith will save us, (no quotes) are many and I have written them out many times. No one ever mentions them, they just throw up a 'straw man' and easily knock him down.

What, to you , does "For by GRACE are you saved, through FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God", mean to you?

Also,: "Not by works of righteousness (baptism?) that we have done, but according to His MERCY He has saved us". ???

Why didn't Paul insist on baptizing as many people as he could get his hands on?

Why didn't Jesus, as His first instruction to Saul/Paul say: "Be baptized! - Immediately!"?

Why was Jesus baptized? (I know: 'To fulfill all righteousness', NOT for the remission of sins - - He didn't have any.

I believed I should be baptizo-ed(sp) and was. But until I was, I knew whom I believed and His Spirit bore witness with my spirit that I was His child.

But I am going to put a lot of study into this and will get back to you, eventually, if the Lord is willing.

Hey, be sure to answer my questions! ;-) ;-)

And John Wilson: Thanks for your kind words and reasonable attitude.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Why didn't Jesus, as His first instruction to Saul/Paul say: "Be baptized! - Immediately!"?

Well, he did . . . "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:6) ". . . And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

John:

I appreciate your comments as I now quote:

Well, Lee, I hate to say it, but I also believe we are saved by faith alone. I think Ephesians 2:8-9 makes that pretty clear that we are not saved by any works we can do. However, I don't consider baptism a work, so I still end up sitting on your side of the fence. =)

You are correct in saying that baptism is not a work. There is no verse in the Bible that says it is a work.

However, You have the same problem that Connie has concerning being saved by faith alone. For the scriptures do not say in any place whatsoever that we are saved by faith alone. You are my friend and brother in Christ but you also cannot find a scripture that says we are saved by faith alone for there is just not any such scripture in the entire pages of Holy writ.

Even the passage that you quote, Ephesian 2:8-9 does not say were saved by grace through faith alone. It plainly says that we are saved by grace (that is one thing) through faith (that is the second thing). If you had faith but God had not offered his grace you would not be saved. If God offered his grace but you did not have faith you would not be saved. It takes both Gods grace and mans faith for one to be saved. That is two things. Mans faith ALONE will not save anyone. In fact, James is quite clear on this matter when he says,  ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only. James 2:24. In James 2:26 he makes it quite clear that faith, if it have not works is DEAD BEING ALONE. Those who seek to be saved by faith ALONE are seeking to be saved by a dead faith. A dead faith will not save anyone, Brother John.

The problem is that everyone is looking for that ONE thing that will save him or her. They sorely want that ONE thing to be something that does not require anything of them except to give mental assent to the facts concerning Christ. They will be sorely disappointed.

The point of Ephesians 2:8-9 is not that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. For it does not say that. The point is that we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done. We cannot boast that we have been so righteous because we have repented of our sins and have been baptized that we have brought about our eternal salvation by own righteous deeds. That is the point. Paul is here referring to works that we devise for ourselves not the works that God has commanded us to do. Even faith is called a Work of God. In John 6:26 some people came up and ask Jesus:  What shall we do that we may work the works of God? Then we are told that He said to them in John 6:29, This is the work of God that you believe on Him that he hath sent. So obviously this is not the kind of work that Paul is talking about when he says that we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done. And Paul tell us in Colossians 2:12 that Baptism is the place where God WORKS. It also is not a work of righteousness which we have done". It too is a work of God that we humbly submit to by faith in Him. But absolutely in no place does the scriptures teach that we are saved by faith alone. In fact James make it clear as the nose on your face that,  By works is a man justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. James 2:24. Now the works that James is talking about is not works of righteousness that we have done but rather the works that God has devised or commanded us to do. Anyone who does not obey Christ will not be saved. (Hebrews 5:8,9; Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46).

If we do not repent we will perish. Luke 13:3,5. Ephesians 2:8-9 says not one word about repentance but Peter said,  repent ye therefore and be converted THAT YOUR SINS might be blotted out Acts 3:19. Then we are told, The times of ignorance therefore God over looked; but now he hath commanded ALL MEN that they should all everywhere repent. Acts 17:30. Now this is something that must be done in addition to faith. I do not care how much faith you claim to have if you have not REPENTED of your sins you will not have the remission of them. Faith alone, without repentance of sin will not save you. Peter said plainly to those on the day of Pentecost, who already believed and asked men and brethren what shall we do to them he said, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38. These people already had faith Peter did not say to them,  you guys do not have to do anything else. You already believe and that is enough for we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. Now John, he did not say that to them did he? They asked what to do. They already believed and he told them to repent and be baptized. He did not tell them to repent and be baptized because FAITH ONLY already saved them. He told them to repent and be baptized for ((eis) meaning in order to) the remission of their sins. John, no person is saved until their sins are forgiven because it is these sins that Christ died to save us from. Those on the day of Pentecost believed but they wanted to know what to do to be saved and Peter Knowing that their FAITH ALONE would not save them told them to repent and be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. This meant in order to obtain the remission of their sins. It is the exact same phrase in the Greek and English of Matthew 26:28 where we are told,  this is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Christ Blood was shed in order to the remission of sins. Those on the day of Pentecost were to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of their sins. Faith alone was just not enough, now was it John?

Now Again I want to make it clear that neither you nor Connie or anyone else can find a SINGLE verse of scripture that says that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE it is just not in the BIBLE, John. I Love you, Brother, but you will not find such a verse either. It is not there to be found. The only place in the Bible where the words  Faith and ONLY are found together is James 2:24 which says,  ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.

Now, John, it should be obvious to you and everyone else that the scripture says NOT BY FAITH ONLY and you are saying we are saved BY FAITH ONLY. Now, John, God says NOT BY FAITH ONLY and you and Connie say BY FAITH ONLY. NOW just who is right? God or Connie and John? I believe God especially since my beloved brother John and my good friend Connie have still not found one single passage that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say any such thing and I know if you read the entire passage in its entire context you will see that it does not say it. Anyone should be able to see that the Bible teaches that we are saved by the blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18,19) by Grace (Eph. 2:8,9) by Faith (Eph. 2:8,9) by the gospel (Romans 1:16) by Repentance (Acts 2; 38) and by Baptism (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21) by obedience to Christ (Heb 5:8,9). Faith if it have not works is DEAD BEING ALONE. (James 2:26). No one can be saved by a DEAD faith brother John. And James, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit says FAITH IF IT HATH NOT WORKS IS DEAD BEING ALONE. (James 2:26) Now that should settle the matter for those who can see and read and think. It is so clear, John, that one would have to have EDUCATED HELP to miss it!

John, I think if you will study this matter you will see that FAITH ONLY is patently false.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Sam:

That was Ananias, several days later.

E.Lee:

Please re-read my first three paragraphs. I don't want to type them again. I'm going to learn how to cut, copy, and paste.

May I ask how much Bible training you have had?

In James: James 1: 5:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally, and UPBRAIDS NOT; and it shall be given him.

If He is our example, I should think we would respond the way He does.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

On pg. 45 , bottom of page (4th paragraph)

Concerning whether one is justified by works:

Romans 1: 16 & 17:

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written: the just shall live by faith.

No mention of baptism.

Oxford New Shorter Dictionary of the English Language (1993)- - two volumes, each 3" thick:

WORK:

A thing done; an act, a deed , or a proceeding. Theology; pl.; Good or moral acts or deeds considered in relation.

Something that has been done, made or performed as a result of one's occupation, effort or activity, especially.; Moral or righteous acts or deeds.

Justified: defensible; Justification: ground of defense

In Him

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Definition of WORK:

I cut the sentence off and it should continue: in relation to justification.

Sorry.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

E.Lee:

I read your material more carefully, since I just scanned it the first time.

On page 42,in the'lurk' paragraph.

I have decided to 'lurk', which I believe means to read with little or no comment, because I have been subjected, as I said in another thread, to being put upon by a phalanx of rude rebutters.

I've already broken that intention, but I didn't get my new Bibles yet. (Which will take me away from posting, reading lurking, etc.)

On that subject (reviling): (And it also addresses judging)

I Corinthians 5: 11 - 13:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer (reviler); with such an one no, not to eat.

For what have I to judge them also that are without? do not you judge them that are within?

But them that are without God judges. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Looks to me that a railer or reviler is ranked with fornicators and idolaters.

RAILER:

One who uses bitter, harsh ir abusive language,

REVILE:

To denounce with abusive language.

James 1: 26 & 27:

If any man among you seem (thinketh himself) to be religiuos, and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is in vain.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fathers and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 3: 13:

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him show out of a good conversation (holy life) his works with MEEKNESS OF WISDOM.

In Jesus,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Typo: fatherless

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Connie:

You say:

When I quote Scripture, I usually put what is Scripture, ALONE in single quotes, unless I'm quoting what someone says; then I use double quotes.

In this case Connie you were not quoting scripture you were stating and opinion contrary to scripture. You said,  We are saved by grace through faith alone. I simply challenged you to find a scripture that says such a thing and you have not yet found one. We are still waiting for it but we know you will never quote one because it just is not in the scriptures.

Then you say:

But, being human, I may have erred. I know you have no such problem. What you are trying to do is trick me into saying the word 'alone' combined with the word 'faith' show up together in Scripture.

You claim that I think I am not human. I can let any of the brethren in here that have discussed matters with me to tell you if they think I would never admit if I am wrong. I have done so in this forum and will do so anytime some proves from the scriptures that I am wrong about something. I have already told you that I would change my mind if you show me one scripture that says we are saved by faith alone. You have not found one yet, now have you?

Then you accuse me of trying to trick you into saying that the words alone and faith show up together in scripture. I am not doing any such thing. I only responded to your yet unproven assertion. You asserted that we are saved by grace through faith alone but you did not back that statement up with scripture. I simply asked you to show us one passage that SAYS we are saved by grace through faith alone. You still have not found one, now have you? In fact, I could not be trying to trick you into saying the word alone Combined with the word faith appear in scripture for I have shown you where the word faith and alone appear in scripture. I will show you again.  So then faith if it hath not works is dead being alone James 2:26. There, the words alone and faith combined appear in scripture to tell us that any faith that is alone is DEAD BEING ALONE. Now Connie, we cannot be saved by a faith that is dead can we? Then I showed you where the words faith and only appear in scripture.  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. James 2:24. Now here we find the words faith and only combined in scripture to tell us that we cannot be justified by FAITH ONLY. Now, Connie, if the scriptures tell us that we cannot be justified by FAITH ONLY then how could any other passage of scripture be telling us that we are saved or justified by faith only without the scriptures contradicting itself? Now the scriptures do not contradict themselves by they most certainly contradict the false doctrines and commandments of men. And these verses that tell us that faith alone is dead and that we are NOT justified by faith only do not contradict anything that the Bible says about faith but they do contradict what you have said about it. You say that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. But the bible says that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. You say, BY FAITH ONLY. God says, NOT BY FAITH ONLY.

Let me put your words side by side with Gods word:

CONNIE SAYS: WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH ALONE

GOD SAYS: YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY. James 2:24.

The contradiction between your opinion and Gods word is obvious, isnt it?

Then you tell the following:

The verses which indicate that ONLY faith is required, i.e. that simply faith will save us, (no quotes) are many and I have written them out many times. No one ever mentions them, they just throw up a 'straw man' and easily knock him down.

Now Connie, there are no verses that say we are saved by faith only. Any such verse would contradict James 2:24 that says we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. You claim that there are many such verses but you have NEVER and I repeat NEVER yet written even one such verse and you do not quote one in this post because you cannot find one. You say no one ever mentions them. Even you do not mention them in this post. I have not thrown up a straw man as you falsely claim. I am responding, as all can see, to every single word that you say. I admit that your arguments are weaker than a straw man but I did not put him up. You are the one that stood up the weak and completely unsubstantiated claim that we are saved by grace through faith alone. I did not make it up Connie. You said it and you cannot defend it and now you want to blame me as if I am pretending that you cannot prove what you say. I notice however that you have not quoted a single scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith alone. I am sure that the reason you do not quote such a verse is because you cannot find one, now can you Connie?

Now to answer your question:

What, to you, does "For by GRACE are you saved, through FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God", mean to you?

It means exactly what it says Connie. It says we are saved by grace through faith. Indeed we are. It does not say we are saved by grace through faith ALONE! It says that it is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God. Indeed that is true. Any works that we have devised ourselves does not save us. Baptism is not a work of man at all. Faith is a work of God (John 6:28,29). And baptism is a place where God works (Col. 2:11, 12). Man does no work in baptism and you cannot show a single passage in the word of God that says, Baptism is a work of righteousness which we have done. In fact Christ himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness but not to do a meritorious deed that would earn him some special rights or privileges ECT. He was submitting to the work of God. When a person is baptized he is passive and doing no work at all. He is simply, by faith in Christ humbly submitting to the righteousness of God. He is undergoing the Circumcision of Christ that happens by faith in the working of God. ( Col. 2:11,12) He is not EARNING his salvation by the sweat of his brow. So you are wrong when you claim that baptism is a work of man. It most certainly is not. The scripture nowhere calls baptism a work of righteousness, which we have done. That is merely your mistaken opinion.

So Paul is telling us that we cannot earn our salvation he is not telling us that we are saved by faith alone. WE are saved, according to this verse by grace (that is one thing) through faith (that is the second thing). You see even in this verse faith is not alone. Faith in this verse is combined with Gods Grace. So even in this verse faith is not alone. Also the kind of faith described in this verse must be a LIVING faith instead of a dead one, do not you agree? Faith if it hath not works is dead being alone James 2:26. Therefore, if this is a living faith- as it must be or it could not save us- it must not be ALONE. It must be combined with obedience to Christ. For this reason we are told,  Though he we a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY him. ( Heb. 5:8,9) Now it does not say Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that ONLY HAVE FAITH IN HIM. It says plainly to all them that OBEY him".

Then you again make an assertion that you cannot prove with these words:

Also, "Not by works of righteousness (baptism?) that we have done, but according to His MERCY He has saved us". ???

You, in parentheses claim that baptism is a work of righteousness. Now baptism is not found in this Ephesians 2:8,9 but you have inserted it into this quote. What a shameful way to handle the word of God. You should be ashamed of yourself! God did not say, and nowhere does he say that baptism is a work of righteousness, which we have done. You are the one that claims, without any proof whatsoever that baptism is a WORK. God does not say that. Connie assumes that. Then you bring up the ridiculous argument that Brother Danny has answered for you now at least twice and you have not dealt with his answer. You ask me:

Why didn't Paul insist on baptizing as many people as he could get his hands on?

Paul did baptize as many people as he could persuade to become Christians or he had someone else to baptize them. But I am saying that he taught all of those to whom he preached to be baptized. Look at acts 19:1-6. And it came about while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus (Which you need to note is the very same people to whom Paul wrote Ephesians 2:8,9) and found some disciples, and he said to them, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said to him, No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. And he said, into what then were ye baptized? And they said, into Johns baptism. And Paul said,  John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, on Jesus. AND WHEN THEY HEAR THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Now Connie, these the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote,  For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one should boast. Now in Acts 19:1-6 we see Paul asking, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? When they told him that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit suddenly he becomes very concerned, not about their faith or what they believed. No he becomes very concerned about their baptism! He corrected them and they were baptized according to his teaching. Now Paul definitely preached that they should be baptized. So your assertion that Paul did not insist upon baptizing people is false. He surely urged these disciples at Ephesus to be baptized. There are other instances of Paul teaching others to be baptized but this is sufficient to answer your question.

Your next question:

Why didn't Jesus, as His first instruction to Saul/Paul say: "Be baptized! - Immediately!"

He did. Jesus did not even tell him to believe. Jesus did not explain anything to him. He sent him to Damascus and told him, There it will be told you what you MUST do". Now Connie, notice the word MUST. The things he would be told in Damascus would be things that he MUST do. He would not be told things that he could do if he wanted to. He would not be told what he should do when he first has the chance. No, Connie, Jesus said there he would be told what he must do. When Ananias came in he said, and now why do you delay? Arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling on His name. Notice Connie, Ananias was sent by Christ to tell Saul what he MUST do and Ananias was in a very big hurry about it. He said, Why do you DELAY? Now if Saul thought like you he would have given him a reason to delay. He would have said,  Now Ananias, do get in such a rush. I am delaying because I have just lost my sight for the past few days and now I am recovered and besides I already have FAITH and that is the ONLY thing I need to be saved. I will just wait until we have enough people collected together that want to participate in a beautiful baptismal service and then I will be baptized. And by the way Ananias, what do you mean by these words that you connect with baptism and wash away thy sins dont you know that my Lord has saved me and taken away my sins the moment I believed? I have no reason to be baptized in such an all fired hurry! But he was not like you, Connie. For he had seen the Lord and the Lord told him that the things he was told to do in Damascus were things that HE MUST do. So the Lord did tell him to be baptized immediately through his messenger Annanias. But if you want more examples read of the Jailer in Acts the 16th Chapter who was baptized immediately,  And he took him that VERY HOUR OF THE NIGHT and washed their wounds, and IMMEDIATELY he was baptized, he and all his household. Now notice Connie, this baptism also took place as a result of PAULS preaching and also notice that this baptism happened the same hour of the night that he learned the gospel, and that hour was after midnight (Acts 16:25) and he woke up everyone in his whole house so that they could be baptized. This is a lot of baptizing happening very fast at the Preaching of the very Paul that you claim did not want to baptized people!

Then you asked me why our Lord was baptized with these words: Why was Jesus baptized? (I know: 'To fulfill all righteousness', NOT for the remission of sins - - He didn't have any.

Now Connie, if you knew the answer why did you ask the question? Of course he said he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. And you are correct in saying that it was not for the remission of Sins for he indeed had no sins and if you were Jesus Christ you would not have to be baptized for the remission of sins either. But you are not Jesus, now are you Connie? And neither were those on the day of Pentecost who were baptized for the remission of sins. But, Jesus was baptized to keep from becoming a sinner. For if he had not followed the commands God had given through John the Baptist calling upon all to be baptized he would have become a sinner because he would have disobeyed God. Notice that we are told that the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves by not being baptized of John. (Luke 7:30). If Jesus had not been baptized of John he would have been just like the Lawyers and Pharisees who had rejected the counsel of God against themselves. He would have been guilty of sin in disobeying God. If refusing to submit to the baptism of John was a rejection of the counsel of God what are we to think about neglecting to obey God in the Baptism of Christ? So there is your answer, Connie. Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness and to follow the counsel of God so that he could remain sinless. If he had not been baptized he would have been a sinner like you and me. Also notice that the Holy Spirit did not even come upon Christ until after he was baptized! How about the idea that Christ was also baptized to receive the spirit just as Christians today are baptized to receive the remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit! Just some things for you to think about. But the fact that Christ was baptized does not justify you in teaching that we can be saved by Faith only. Your question has nothing to do with our discussion. The fact that God expected even the Son of God, the father, to be baptized gives no sinful man any excuse for fighting against baptism. If the Son of God himself did it and we are to follow Christ we must follow him into the water! That is not an argument in your favor Connie. In fact it is against everything you are saying. Let me ask you, did Jesus practice FAITH ONLY? No, our lord set the example of Faith and OBEDIENCE to God.

Then you say something else that you cannot prove to us from the scriptures:

I believed I should be baptizo-ed(sp) and was. But until I was, I knew whom I believed and His Spirit bore witness with my spirit that I was His child.

Now how are you going to prove to us that His Holy Spirit bore witness with your spirit that you were his child before you were baptized? You cannot prove it by the scriptures. You can only say that it was your feeling that such was the case but you cannot prove it. We accept the word of God but reject your opinions based upon your subjective feelings for such proves absolutely NOTHING.

Then you say:

But I am going to put a lot of study into this and will get back to you, eventually, if the Lord is willing.

I have no doubt that the Lord is willing for you to stufy this matter. And I hope you do put a lot of study on this matter Connie for it is obvious to all that you have not put very much study into it up to this point. In fact, it appears as if you have not even begun to really think about these things. So it is good that you have been challenged to the point that now you feel a need to do what you obviously have never done. STUDY about this subject. Yes, Connie it is clear that you do need to Study it and I will pray for you while you do just that.

Then you say:

Hey, be sure to answer my questions! ;-) ;-)

I have answered your questions. Now I want to ask you again to go back and answer all of the things that I have put to you in the two posts that you are still ignoring! You want all of your questions answered but you do not want to do the work of responding to the things that I have put to you in those two posts that I have practically begged you to answer. Now, Connie, I am not going to do all the work here. I expect you to do some work too. At least acknowledge my post and admit that you have not answered and either promise to answer when you have time or tell me that you have no response or that you have studied and agree. But to instigate these discussions and then ignore all responses is extremely weak.

Then you thank John for his kind words and reasonable attitude:

And John Wilson: Thanks for your kind words and reasonable attitude.

John is kind and reasonable and I am as well but you appreciate him because he agrees with you. If he did not agree he would not be considered so kind and reasonable to you now would he?

I have responded to John also. Neither of you have yet shown us a single passage of scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. The reason neither of you after all of this writing have given such a passage is because, and I repeat, THERE IS NO SUCH PASSAGE IN THE ENTIRE WORD OF GOD! For you see how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. (James 2:24). Now that is the truth. And your doctrine that we are saved by FAITH ONLY is not the truth at all. Even if my Brother John, whom I highly respect, says it; it still is just not the truth.

I do pray for you Connie as you study a subject that you obviously have not studied very much until now.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Lee;

In my humble opinion, when James says "we are saved not by faith only," he is talking about in the eyes of the world. Not having any deeds to back up what we say does nothing to show Christ to the world. It becomes a "do as I say, not as I do" proposition. However in the eyes of God, we are saved by faith alone, and not by works, as Paul points out in Ephesians. "Abraham believed God, and it was as credited to him as righteousness." There a dynamic tension that is resolved when we understand that Paul and James were coming at the question from two very different points of view, Paul from our justified position with God and James from the perspective of those who would scrutinize our faith. This is the only way "You are saved by grace through faith, not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God, not of works" and "Faith without works is dead, being alone" can be properly understood. In my humble opinion anyway. (Hey guys, anyone who wants to can be my guest and back me up ... don't let me be Staffolded all by myself! LOL!)

Your Brother in Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

A favorite passage of mine:

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." - John 6:28-29

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Ok ... maybe I am confused here ... but I find myself in agreement with you, Danny ... and you say you are in agreement with Lee, whom I disagree with. Hmmmm. I hear Lee espousing that we are not saved solely by Grace, but also by works, which to me smacks of Socinianism. I believe that we are saved by Grace alone, just as Abraham was. And that Baptism (I have changed my view on this since I first started hanging around here) is not a work of righteousness, but an act of faith. Paul goes to great lengths to show we are no longer under the Law, no longer under a works system. He uses Hebrew paralllelism to emphasize the point. "For it is by Grace (God's unmerited favor) you have been saved, through faith ... it is the gift of God." "And this not from yourselves ... not by works." But then he adds in verse 10 what I think is the clincher. "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." As new creations we are created to do good works! But the works do not save us! It is simply our purpose, what we are here to do.

To reiterate, however: as I now read it, Baptism is not a work of righteousness to gain salvation, but an act of faith to enter into that salvation. As many of you may recall, I was closer to the Baptist comcept on baptism a few months back, but after study and consideration of many of your fine arguments, I have "repented" (metanoia: to have a change of mind).

God bless,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

John:

I just do not know why but most people often do as you have done in your response to my post. Though I admit that this is indeed very rare for you. They read my arguments and then completely ignore them and just continue making assertions without proof. I will now quote your response as follows:

" In my humble opinion, when James says, "we are saved not by faith only," he is talking about in the eyes of the world. Not having any deeds to back up what we say does nothing to show Christ to the world. It becomes a "do as I say, not as I do" proposition. However in the eyes of God, we are saved by faith alone, and not by works, as Paul points out in Ephesians. "Abraham believed God, and it was as credited to him as righteousness." There a dynamic tension that is resolved when we understand that Paul and James were coming at the question from two very different points of view, Paul from our justified position with God and James from the perspective of those who would scrutinize our faith. This is the only way "You are saved by grace through faith, not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God, not of works" and "Faith without works is dead, being alone" can be properly understood. In my humble opinion anyway. (Hey guys, anyone who wants to can be my guest and back me up ... don't let me be Staffolded all by myself! LOL!)"

Now you assert, but do not prove, that when James says, "we are saved not by faith only," he is talking about in the eyes of the world." But John, you do not prove this assertion by anything that God said through James. I will now quote more of the context so that all can see that James mentions nothing to indicate that he is "talking about in the eyes of the world" as you claim.

"What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble 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? Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:14-26.

Now Brother John just where does the context indicate that James was "talking about in the eyes of the world" as you claim?

Now notice, James begins his discussion of this matter as if he were in fact addressing the very issue that we are now discussing in this forum. He begins by saying, " What does it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith and have not works? Then he asked the very question we are now discussing, " Can faith save him?" In other words he ask can faith alone without works save a man? That is his very topic. He does not even mention in the "eyes of the world"

He then proceeds to make his brilliant argument, which is completely contrary to your opinion, Brother John. His first argument is from common sense. He says "if a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not the things needful to the body, what doeth it profit?" Now the question is a rhetorical one. To ask it is to answer it. It carries by the force of common sense and knowledge the emphatic answer; "It profits them nothing". Merely telling a hungry man, depart in peace and be ye warmed and filled leaves him in the same starving condition that he was found. Nice words, kind hopes, good intentions and a completely empty belly. Now Brother John we have people coming to God starving for salvation. And you and Connie want to tell them "depart in peace be ye warmed and filled and tell them nothing about obedience that is needful to the soul (Heb. 5:8,9) and they go away as lost as they were when they came seeking salvation."

Then he gives us an example of someone that has "faith only". He says, "The devils also believe and tremble." Now there you go, Brother John, the devils BELIEVE. But they tremble because they know that faith only is not enough. They know that even though they believe they will be eternally lost because they cannot bring themselves to humbly submit and obey God. That is just detestable to them. And, John, this spirit of rebellion against obeying God in baptism comes from that same spirit of the devils who have faith only. They do not mind believing so long as they NEVER have to submit and obey God. Now I do not charge you with this belief. But you are supporting the idea that belief alone is enough but James says the devils believe but faith alone does not stop them from trembling because it does not save them. The difference is that human beings expect to be saved by faith alone and should be trembling at such a teaching but they do not tremble because they have been deceived into believing that it is sufficient. And James is pointing out that the devils believe and they tremble because they know that the fact that they believe will not save them.

Then James proceed to his next argument:

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works dead?" Now here he prefaces his argument about the believing devils with the supposition that men would try to keep these two concepts "faith and works" separate. One man would say, I have faith and you have works. Sounds a lot like you and I doesn't it? You argue that you will be saved by faith alone and you do this because you think that I am arguing that works alone saves us. Now you are mistaken for the scriptures do not teach that we are saved by "faith alone". You have not, nor has anyone else yet shown one single passage that teaches we are saved by "faith only". For there is no such passage exist in the scriptures. You are also mistaken in the assumption that I am arguing that we are saved by works alone. For I am only arguing for what the scriptures teach. James says that both of these positions are wrong. He tells us the truth. He says, "show me thy faith without thy works and I will show you my faith BY MY WORKS". Then, using the devils as an example he shows that their faith does not save them because it is alone and not coupled with works that a living faith will prompt. He is telling us, as we shall see further in his argument that "by works is faith made perfect". In other words he is saying that a faith that does not move one to obey God and do the works that God has commanded us to do is "incomplete". He argues that such a faith is DEAD. By this he means that it is incapable of accomplishing anything. It is in fact USELESS. For this reason he says to those who believe that faith alone is sufficient, " But wilt thou know O vain man that faith without works is DEAD." Now John, if we are saved by faith without works we are saved by an incomplete faith. If we are saved by faith without works then we are saved by a dead faith. This is James' reasoning. He is telling us that faith combined with works is effective. He even challenges those who trust in "Faith only" to show their faith without their works and he would show them his faith BY HIS WORKS. Now, John, you cannot show me your faith without any works. It is simply impossible to do. If you believe something in your mind, it is impossible for me to see it unless you act in harmony with that belief. You can decide to believe in Christ, John, but until you act in such a way as to indicate that you believe in Christ it is impossible for anyone to see that you believe in Christ. In fact, it is really not even possible for you to convince yourself that you believe in Christ until you act in some way as to demonstrate it. I can say all day long that I believe that I can fly. But until I jump off a cliff and spread my wings and begin to flap can I convince myself that I really believe it. And anyone hearing me talk about it would also doubt my belief until they see me act in harmony with that belief. Now even those who believe in "faith only" recognize this principle for they just cannot wait to get sinners to stand up and "give their testimony" to show that they believe. They insist that the sinner say the sinner's prayer because they also feel this compelling need to have the sinner show his faith. If one came among them and never even said that he believe in Christ. And never did anything that indicated such a belief. They would not consider him as saved. In fact this is the very reason that you often hear them say that they do not know who is saved and who is not. For it is true. They do not know! They cannot know. For if faith alone in the heart is the only criteria then it is impossible to know. Now there is no need to say "as long as God knows that is all that matters". For that is not all that matters. Christ said that we must confess him. We cannot confess Christ by "faith alone in the heart". For Paul said, " For with the heart man BELIEVETH unto righteousness AND with the MOUTH confession is made unto salvation." ( Romans 10:9,10). So if you ONLY BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART but you do NOT CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH you WIL NOT BE SAVED. So how can you follow Roman's 10:9,10 by "faith only"? It is impossible! It is absolutely impossible!

So those who believe in "faith only" also require works. But they require the works of Man in the place of obedience to the commands of God . Yes, Brother John, they require works also to demonstrate their faith but they just do not like the acts that God has devised and commanded for this purpose. They prefer to invent their own. John, find me any place where they do not require some kind of response from a sinner before they will agree that he is saved by faith alone. If he does not do SOMETHING to SHOW his faith to them they will never reach the conclusion that he is saved. Now whatever it is that they expect him to do in order to show that he has saving faith is an addition to faith. Therefore I submit to you that even those who CLAIM to believe that we are saved by faith ALONE do not really believe it. They do not practice that belief. They will require sinners to "say the sinners prayer" now that is a WORK of MAN'S device in addition to faith. But if they really believe that a man is saved by faith alone they would not require such of them. Or they may ask him to give his "testimony" in order to see that he has been saved by "faith only" but when they do this it is no longer faith ALONE it is faith plus their testimony. Even if they only require him to say, " I got saved last night" it is no longer by faith ALONE. For you see, James is correct when he says " show me thy faith without thy works" You see it just cannot be done. Then he says I will show you my faith BY my works.

From this argument he proceeds to show that faith without works is an incomplete faith.

"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?" Now notice here that he tells us exactly WHEN Abraham was justified. He says he was justified when he OFFERED Issac his son upon the alter. He was justified when he acted in harmony with his faith. He was justified when his "faith wrought with his works" until his faith was complete and not one moment before. Then he shows that "by works is FAITH MADE PERFECT" or complete. Those who believe that we are saved by "faith only" actually believe we are saved by an incomplete faith. Now we cannot just partially believe in Christ but we must completely believe in him, do not you agree? Well then if we do not obey him (Hebrews 5:8,9) then our faith in him is partial and incomplete or imperfect. When you combine Ephesians 2:8,9 with Hebrews 5:8,9 and tie them together with James 2:14-26 you have the complete picture. And that picture is not salvation by "faith only" Instead it is a clear picture of salvation by a COMPLETE and perfected faith. We are saved by a complete faith; a faith that is made perfect by obedience just as our Lord himself was "made perfect or complete by obedience. (Heb. 5:8,9) a faith that is alive and not dead. God wants us to be born again. He does not want us to be victims of Satan's "partial birth abortion" that he has deceptively and euphemistically named "faith only". A deception of the Devil that allows faith to be conceived in the heart provided that it NEVER is allowed to be combined or wrought with obedience so that the COMPLETED faith can produce a genuine child of God.

Now I know that the word that gets everyone excited is the word WORK. We all know that we cannot by any means "work our way to heaven". We all know that we are saved by Christ our Lord because we cannot be saved without him. Therefore we are so afraid to use the word "work" the way James and Paul use it. We are so afraid that someone will draw the erroneous conclusion that we can be saved by our "own" righteousness that we will not use the very word "work" in connection with our salvation even though James uses the word over and over again. Now there is a big difference between works of individual MERIT and works devised by God to keep our faith alive to the saving of our souls. There is a big difference between EARNING my salvation by great meritorious deeds and humbly submitting, by faith, to the works that God has devised and commanded that we do. When we have done all that we are commanded to do we are still "unprofitable servants". We have not earned anything but we do at least have a "living " faith instead of a "DEAD one. And we do at least have a complete faith instead of a partial and unfinished one. We are at least justified instead of unjustified. We are at least completely born again in stead of perpetually conceived but never born or worse conceived but eventually aborted for our faith has not been made perfect.

Then you claim incorrectly that Paul and James are talking about the same "question" from two different angles with these words:

"There a dynamic tension that is resolved when we understand that Paul and James were coming at the question from two very different points of view, Paul from our justified position with God and James from the perspective of those who would scrutinize our faith. This is the only way "You are saved by grace through faith, not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God, not of works" and "Faith without works is dead, being alone" can be properly understood."

Now nothing could be further from the truth, Brother John! For because of this same error some have erroneously concluded that Paul and James did not agree with each other on this matter. Though I know that you do not draw this conclusion I am saying that those who do draw such a conclusion do so because they make the same mistake of assuming that Paul and James are discussing the same question. But a moment of reflection should dispel that notion. Paul is discussing works that cannot save and James is discussing faith that cannot justify. The major mistake made by many who read these scriptures with a hope of solving the controversies of the 21st century religious world fail to make this clear distinction. Paul is talking about "meritorious works of man's own device by which he can boast of having won or earned his salvation as a prize or a payment. And James is talking about works of God's device that is "wrought with our faith" in order to make it "COMPLETE" so that it will become a living faith that will justify us. He makes a great comparison between this faith and "Faith only" which cannot and will not justify us. (James 2:24) He calls such a faith "DEAD" and incomplete. Such a faith that is "alone" is dead and cannot do anything to justify anyone. Paul is discussing works that cannot save and James is discussing faith that cannot justify. This is a simple truth and completely overlooked by those who are so eager to find solace in the doctrine of salvation by a dead faith or "salvation by faith only".

It is almost as if Satan himself has blinded the eyes of so many. When the word of God plainly states that we are NOT justified by FAITH ONLY (James 2:24) and so many just close their eyes and refuse to read it. Do not do that John. It is there and it is the truth. Now remember you have not found one passage that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE". It just does not exist!

Now Paul and James are not even discussing the same type of works. They are not talking about the same type of works at all. Therefore they do not have different views of the same subject but rather the same views of different subjects. The subject in Ephesians 2:8,9 is the fact that the works of the Law cannot "meritoriously" earn salvation. The subject of James 2:14-26 is justification by a Living faith. By this he means a complete, living, active, effective and useful faith that is made such by being combined or joined or wrought with the works of God's device. Which is obedience to His commands as opposed to a dead, lifeless, useless, incomplete faith that does not for all practical purposes exist simply because it is "ALONE"

Therefore, John, your contention that he is talking about this subject in relation to the world and Paul is talking in relation to the Church is completely wrong. There is not one single word in either of these passages or their context that indicates that James was talking about faith in the "eyes of the world". No he was talking to Christians about the true nature of a living, active, useful, and complete faith as opposed to a dead useless and incomplete faith! Now Some have concluded that since he is talking to Christians that this passage does not apply to the discussion of how to become a Christian or how to be saved. But you see this is based upon the mistaken notion that we are saved by a principle that is different from how we maintain our reconciliation with God. But this is a false notion. The exact same process that makes me a Christian also automatically makes me a member of the family of God and the "rules" controlling who shall be allowed to enter the house are not any different from those by which one is allowed to live in the house. We enter by the grace of God "through faith". By this is meant a faith that causes us to have enough confidence in the Gracious Owner of the house to submit to His Lordship and humbly obey His commands or the "rules" of His house. Because we follow the "rules" of the master of the house does not give us any right to boast that we have earned and cannot be denied the right to live in the master's house and enjoy his benefits.

Then you say:

"However in the eyes of God, we are saved by faith alone,"

Now John, please notice that once again you have not shown any passage of scripture that SAYS that in the eyes of God we are saved by "FATIH ALONE". Now John, you should at least try to find a scripture that says such. You cannot find one and that is the reason why it is not the truth. Now we know and respect the fact that such is YOUR opinion but it is not taught in the word of God. We still wait for anyone to present just one passage that says we are saved "by grace through faith ALONE". It just does not exist, now does it John? Where can we find such a verse for neither you or anyone else in this forum can show us a passage of scripture that teaches that "in the eyes of God we are saved by faith alone" as you assert but do not prove. It just is not their Brother John. Now that is the simple truth of this matter.

Then you say:

"and not by works, as Paul points out in Ephesians. "Abraham believed God, and it was as credited to him as righteousness."

But you neglect to notice, Brother John, that James tells us concerning the exact say reference concerning Abraham and he tell us WHEN Abraham was "Credited as righteous" or when he was "justified". For James tells us concerning this exact same event in Abraham's life, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Yes he was "credited by Faith as righteous WHEN HIS FAITH WAS WROUGH WITH HS WORKS IN THE ACT OPF OFFERING HIS SON ISSAC IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMAND OF GOD. Now this show, without doubt that God does not consider a person to be a genuine believe until he is actually OBEDIENT. Now that is the "rest of the story", Brother John. That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do pray for your Brother John and I especially pray for our friend Connie that the both of you will see the truth for it is clear and easy to understand. I thank God for you Brother John and you know that you and I do still make a pretty good team against the pernicious doctrines that we have been fighting. And now I find myself trying to help spare you from a doctrine that is so pernicious that "even God's children can be mislead into believing it. But I know you to be an honest man and honorable and ever willing to yeild to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. As you have said, and I know that it is true that you have been willing to acept the truth about baptism and "repent" (Change of mind) as you put it. So I ask you and I pray that you will give this subject similar serious consideration. I do sincerely believe that you are in error about this matter and I believe if you will think of the arguments that I have presented from God's word you will be able to see that it is the truth. This is especially true since no one, including yourself, Brother John, has presented even one verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" and you will not present one because it does not exist. If you were to find one then you would have to explain the definite contradiction between James and Paul for James says, " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY" James 2:24. This is the very reason that Luther did not like the book of James because he saw it as being in conflict with Paul when the only thing that it was truly in conflict with was Luther's false notion of salvation by "FAITH ONLY". You see he never realized that it was LUTHER that inserted the little word "ONLY" into every place where he found the word faith and the truth is that it does not exist in ANY place where we find the word faith except in James 2:24 where we are clearly told that " by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY".

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Connie:

I noticed your following post after I had answered the one that you had written after this one but I do not want to follow your example of ignoring those who write to me in their post. I now quote your words:

E.Lee: Please re-read my first three paragraphs. I don't want to type them again. I'm going to learn how to cut, copy, and paste. May I ask how much Bible training you have had? In James: James 1: 5: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally, and UPBRAIDS NOT; and it shall be given him. If He is our example, I should think we would respond the way He does.

First you tell me to read your first three paragraphs with these words:

Please re-read my first three paragraphs. I don't want to type them again.

I have read them Connie and I have answered them in the post that I wrote in answer to yours. So now why do not you read my answer to your first three paragraphs. And while you are at it please try to answer the two post that I have now asked you four times to answer. You want your words to be read and you consider them so important that you insist they we pay attention to them. I have not ignored any of them. But you ignore much of what has been said in response to your words that we all agreed were so important that we should respond to them. So where is your respect for our post that are written in response to yours. Is the problem just that you do not have any answer? That is fine if such is the case. All you have to do is admit that you need to study more and acknowledge that we have written some things that you need to think about. But do not just ignore them. That is a sign of unwillingness to even attempt to dialog about these things.

Then you asked:

May I ask how much Bible training you have had?

Now what exactly does this have to do with the price of rice in China? Of course you may ask and I will answer when you give me a good reason as to why that is important to our discussion. So do tell me why you think it is important to our discussion of this subject that I should inform you of how much Bible training I have had? Is it because you need that information to make bolster your false claim that you made earlier that I was a pastor or minister with nothing better to do than sit around and write in this forum? I have already told you that I am not a pastor or a minister or in any way a paid full-time, or part-time for that matter, preacher in the Church. I am an ordinary Christian. Nothing more and by Gods grace nothing less.

Then you quote a part of the book of James that you like while deliberately ignoring the part that you DO NOT LIKE:

In James: James 1: 5:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally, and UPBRAIDS NOT; and it shall be given him.

I accept this verse and believe it and I pray constantly for wisdom. For anyone can tell that one who would help others see that such deceptive false doctrines as the idea that we are saved by faith only requires a lot of wisdom to correct. It is easy to refute but it takes wisdom to get normally intelligent people to look past their prejudices and see that the word of God is contrary to this pernicious doctrine. I also pray that our Great God will bless you Connie with abundant wisdom and knowledge of the truth so that you may have eternal life in Christ the Son of God.

But you are ignoring now and you continue to ignore James 2:24 that says PLAINLY: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. (James 2:24). So you pick the verses that you like. I therefore admonish you urgently to read them all and submit to Christ our Lord in all that he through the Holy Spirit inspired James to write. This includes the truth that FAITH ONLY does not justify us.

I remind you again Connie that you still have not given us a single verse in the entire word of God that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. The reason that you have not done so is VERY obvious to everyone. You just cannot find one now can you Connie? It is just not there and the sooner you admit it the sooner you will find the truth. For the reason the Bible does not say that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE is simply because it has already said, ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. James 2:24. The moment that you find a scripture that says the OPPOSITE of this one you will have a direct contradiction in the word of God. You will never find such a passage Connie because the WORD OF GOD does not CONTRADICT itself in any place whatsoever.

Now you have not dealt with this passage from James 2:24 at all Connie. Why do you ignore it? I will tell you why. Because it is so clear and is so contrary to your assertions that you just cannot accept what it says! Now that is obvious to all in this forum. You are still neglecting to even consider my two posts that I have asked you to review and answer. Why? I will tell you why. You just do not have an answer, now do you?

I do pray fervently for you Connie.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Danny:

I think that it is possible that you missed this statement by our Brother John. Though I admit that is possible that I misunderstood him, especially since you did not see it the same way that I did. If you did not see it as a continuation of his former assertion that we are saved by faith only I surely must consider the distinct possibility that I have misunderstood him but I do not think that I have so I will quote his words and maybe you can correct my understanding of what he has said. He said the following, which I consider to be just another way of saying that we are saved by faith only:

However in the eyes of God, we are saved by faith alone, and not by works, as Paul points out in Ephesians.

Now the Bible does not say that we are saved by faith alone in Gods eyes at all. And Ephesians most certainly, as you have pointed out so well, does not say any such thing.

However, if anyone in this forum can make me se the error of my thinking it is you. So if I have misunderstood Brother John maybe you can help me see just how I have done so.

If you can I would appreciate it because my objective is to correct his initial error that we are saved by grace through faith Alone which I know is not taught in any place in the scriptures.

May our Lord abundantly bless you Brother.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Lee, let me take a shot at it.

In both James and the letters of Paul, faith is the key ingredient to our obtaining salvation (at least, from our end of the deal -- the ONE key, of course, is the grace of God offered us). The big difference I see between the writings of Paul on the matter and the writings of James on the matter is that Paul deals mostly with answering the question, "In what do I put my faith?" In James, the question being answered is, "What does faith look like? How do I know it when I see it?"

The key is in James 2:14 - "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" The phrase "such faith", or, "that kind of faith", shows that James is separating faith that just speaks words from faith that effects how one lives. James then spends the rest of the chapter showing what real faith looks like.

In short, James is showing the difference between mere intellectual assent to fact ("the demons believe, and tremble"), and faith that changes one's life, faith that is lived out physically. James is not emphasizing the works -- he is still emphasizing the faith, by telling us that we can know that SAVING faith is present by looking at how it changes what one does.

The confusion here also goes to the ideas that John is working through about how to classify baptism, whether as a "work of righteousness" by which one might earn salvation, or as part of the response in faith to which God calls us. The difference is clear: Bary Hanson chooses the former, and so dismisses baptism out of hand. John has come to (at least begin to) agree with the latter, and so is coming into agreement with most of us.

We (you, me, John, Danny, etc.) agree on the following items: a) that man is sinful and in need of a savior. b) that God has provided payment for all sin through the death of His Son Jesus. c) that salvation through Jesus is offered freely to all mankind, in all places and all times. d) that in response to that offer of salvation, we are called to believe that God is; and to believe that Jesus is His atoning sacrifice for our sin; and to put our lives in His hands by a faithful submission of our will to His; and to confess both that we sin and that He is our Savior and God; and to repent of our former way; and to submit to immersion as the beginning expression of that submission of our will to His. At such time as we make this submission to Him, God gives the indwelling presence of the Spirit as a downpayment on the glorious eternal life to come after this world is done, and to act as the presence of God in us that we might have comfort and Godly wisdom and understanding of His Word and courage in this world.

We CAN all agree to this, can't we?

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Grace, Peace, and Love in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ to my Fellow Christians who are scattered throughout America:

I found all of the postings from this thread I had printed out, put them together, and re-read them.

LET ME STATE THAT I AM NOT RESPONDING AT THIS POSTING TO THE TWO QUESTIONS E. LEE KEEPS ASKING. I WILL RESPOND TO THOSE AFTER I HAVE COMPLETED A STUDY I WILL BE STARTING TOMORROW. SO, E. LEE, PLEASE STOP NAGGING ME ABOUT THOSE. I FEEL I HAVE ANSWERED THOSE BY POINTING OUT THE SCRIPTURES WHICH SUPPORT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH, THROUGH GRACE AND THE UNMERITED FAVOR WHICH CHRIST'S SHED BLOOD COMPLETELY PAID FOR. IT WAS NOT JUST A DOWN PAYMENT. IT WAS THE WHOLE PRICE. AS OTHERS AND I HAVE STATED, WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH AND THEN ARE TO BE OBEDIENT TO ALL OF CHRIST'S COMMANDS.

I meant for all of that to be capitalized.

When I complete that study, which may take some time, I will respond.

I discovered that I agree with most of what dbvz, John Wilson and Barry Hanson say.

It's difficult to decide whether I agree with Danny and E. Lee. In the case of Mark Wisniewski (are you a relative of a Walt, Shelley and Wendy Wisniewski of Berkley, MI?): I would prefer to be associated with John Calvin of the Reformation than with Calvin of the underwear.

John Calvin was a devout Christian who made a few errors and kept a couple from the R.C. Church, as the Campbells did and Luther did. They were so indoctrinated by the church they left, that it's no surprise they kept some of the error. The Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans all kept infant baptism, so it must have been a particularly well-ingrained dogmatism.

The miracle is that with the inventing of the printing press, so many were able to read the truth for themselves. There are believers in every denomination, and we should 'think on these things' - - the things that are lovely.

But I don't condemn them, because they were just men who 'saw through a glass darkly'. Now, if they called themselves Christians but stole, or committed adultery, or bore false witness, or murdered, didn't love God or neighbors or honor their parents, THEN we should not even eat with them.

So in that respect we should judge our fellow believers, but not in regard to holy days, the eating of meat, or the drinking of a little wine, whether we have musical instruments in our services, and what we name our churches. The latter things cause divisions.

I will refer to different items by giving the page numbers. The thread has become unwieldy, but on TB2000 some of those threads are 200 pages.

On page 8 in Barry's post: I can see why Barry has become satirical. Also why he doesn't come back very often. I agree with most of what Barry says. On page 9: Barry, you say that the R.C. Church's claim to direct lineage through Peter makes sense to your natural mind. Are you aware that the Greek words for 'Peter' (petra)- - a, small rolling stone - - and 'rock'(petros)- - a large, immovable rock, meaning Christ - - are two different words, and that Christ was speaking of himself in that passage? 'For thou art 'petra' and on this 'petros'I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

Also, the Roman Catholic Church gradually developed a heirarchy, which was institutionalized by Constantine.

Biblically, I disagree with Danny, Sam, and E.Lee.

On page 11, Danny, you twist what I said, and say: "So what you are saying is, we can be saved without being obedient". Show me where I say that. But I DO say that baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

You and E. Lee continually twist what people say and think that with your many words you can 'snow' them. Actually, it's more of a blizzard of words. With few paragraphs. I had a proofreading course, and it is very difficult for people to read such unremitting flurries of words.

Also, on page 11, at the bottom, I state the faith and obedience to works that my Lord foreordained that I should walk in. Our problem is possibly one of symantics, or even 'paradox'.

PARADOX:

A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. 'We see though a glass darkly, but then face-to-face'.

Oh, Dear. I'm only to page 11, and they go to 58 or so, the last I looked. I really don't like such long posts.

On page 12: My question:

'Who decides which denomination are we all to belong to?' And the Churches of Christ ARE a denomination, no matter what they may say.

On page 23:

INRE: Creeds and denominations.

I see nothing at all wrong with a Church presenting a 'Statement of Faith'; this helps people to determine whether it is a new tesatment church or not. If people stay awake they can determine for themselves whether the pastor is straying from the faith or not.

But of course, they can't if they do not know what the Scriptures say. Page 24 lists several verses upon which I base my position. Don't 'blizzard' me again with all of your presumptions and downright twisting of what I've said. I rank that with 'bearing false witness' and we all know who is 'the father of lies'.

Danny, as you mention on page 26 I keep mentioning the R.C. Church, because your church seems so dogmatic, as they do. And you keep mentioning the 1600 years of church history that you go with.

Church history is 2000 + - old, and much of it has been in error. If there is one thing i will not go with it's church history or tradition. They have 'made of no effect' the words of my Savior and Lord.

The Restoration Movement is no different than any other Reformation church, which formed when various Christian men, devout all, read the Scriptures for themselves and saw the egregious error in the practices of Rome.

Page 28: I didn't think Barry's satirical statements were bitter. Anyone who disagrees with the official stand of the more vociferous posters on this board is verbally raked over the coals. Ridicule me for using the term 'love' if you wish, but the writers of the New Testament were not afraid to use it, in fact, used it often.

Page 29:

Benjamin Rees:

Anyone at any time can decide to be disobedient (witness this board - -very litle love and forbearance exhibited here!) It doesn't take someone erroneously preaching that the work of baptism is necessary for salvation to achieve that.

In your reference to 'Gnosticism' I would say this: several on this board are much closer to their teachings than I am.

World Book:

The Gnostics believed that knowledge, not blind faith, held the key to the mysteries of life. They 'intellectualized' the gospel.

INRE: The scenario you present of receiving gifts but their not being yours until you accept them; I agree with that. But it is in your possession to access at your will. As is salvation from God's heart.

Benjamin: I didn't mean you were unloving, but some are. Dualism just means we are both mental and physical beings or that there are two forces in society: good and evil. I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time arguing that. Who cares?

Page 31:

At the bottom of the page~

Have you really looked at what I've said there? I've asked that question at least twice on these threads and never had it answered.

You say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. How many people in History have been immersed? I mean people who are really 'born again'. I should think that no one since around 300 A.D. until the rise of your church (1600 + - ) and the 'sailors of the cross' ;-) - the Baptists. Now, you seem to have a lot of animosity towards them, also.

I can hardly imagine that God would leave such an important function to the vagaries of men - - making mere man's opinions operative in a person's eternal salvation. But that is my opinion, WHICH I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT.

I mean, that would make extremely few people who have gone to be with the Lord, wouldn't it? And simply because of men's opinions, who can't even agree on whether to have 'one cup' for communion, or when to worship, or whether to have instruments or not?

But that isn't why I don't believe it. I will state my reasons in that future epistle.

Page 33:

dbvz:

I agree with so much of what you say, but our church has adhered to Christ's words and practices and we are a completely autonomous, local assembly. We DO have a 'Statement of Faith', so that people wanting to join can read that and determine whether they want ot fellowship with us or not.

We don't make a big deal over whether people need to join or not; only if they are going to be in places of leadership or teaching. Baptism is by immersion, but we don't require it for membership, as we believe the Scriptures do not. The people who have not joined are, nonetheless, for the most part, members of the 'Body of Christ'.

Page 35:

E. Lee:

I am not afraid to answer your question. 'Perfect love casts out fear'. 'For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of love, and of power, and of a sound mind'. I subscibe to that.

Page 37:

I don't need to explain the Scriptures; they speak for themselves. I would fear that I might be adding to what they say. The Holy Spirit enlightens.

Please give me the page and paragraph where I have used the words you claim I've used, AS DIRECT QUOTES. I realize that you may not have had proofreading, so you may not know the rules of punctuation.

Page 39:

I'm not contending against baptism; I'm contending against baptism as a requirement for salvation. Obedience, yes; salvation, no.

I can't find the page right now, but please re-read the post I made where I said: "I know you have no such problem". I was not saying you were not human, I was saying you were not a human WHO ERRS. (Dripping with sarcasm, I'm afraid.)

In another thread, my words were misunderstood where I said Danny was either VERY YOUNG or had no mother. My meaning was that if he had had a mother, she'd have taught him good manners.

Well, I've only gotten to page 39 but I'm going to have to finish another time.

I am 66 years old, and don't have the stamina I once did and I have other e-mail I need to answer.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Brother Sam:

I say a hearty AMEN to what you have said!

Brother Danny:

I also agree with what you have said. It does seem that Brother John is moving away from the idea of "faith only" to the understanding that Faith is inclusive of obedience to God's commands (including the understanding that it is by God's grace that we can be baptised for the remission of our sins) even though he has not yet given up all of the "slogans" or language of the "faith only" teaching.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Connie: You have asked Danny the following:

On page 11, Danny, you twist what I said, and say: "So what you are saying is, we can be saved without being obedient". Show me where I say that. But I DO say that baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

You say it again in this very post, Connie. These are your words:

I'm not contending against baptism; I'm contending against baptism as a requirement for salvation. Obedience, yes; salvation, no.

Now if you are sincerely claiming that baptism is essential to obedience but it is not essential to salvation then you must believe that obedience is not essential to salvation.

Now you seem to be complaining that Brother Danny has falsely accused you of saying that obedience is NOT essential to salvation. Well I think that you DO believe that obedience is essential to salvation and therefore you cannot at the same time believe that baptism is essential to obedience but not essential to salvation. That would be a contradiction.

So I will make this argument as follows based on my belief that you agree that obedience is essential to salvation and prove from your own words that logically, if you believe that OBEDIENCE is essential to salvation, and that BAPTISM is ESSENTIAL to obedience then you must accept the fact that baptism is essential to salvation.

Major premise:

Obedience is essential to salvation.

Minor premise:

Baptism is essential to obedience.

Conclusion:

Therefore Baptism is essential to salvation.

If you agree with the major premise of this sylogism, Connie, and you also agree with the minor premise then it is imposible to logically deny or escape the conclusion!

You say imply that you agree with the major premise in your complaint against brother Danny's assertion that you were saying that obedience is not essential to salvation. For why would you complain that you never said such a thing if you in fact believe that obedience was NOT essential to salvation. You complain because you do believe that obedience is essential to salvation. Therefore you do accept the major premise that obedience is essential to salvation.

Then you also agree with the minor premise that baptism is essential to salvation with these words:

I'm not contending against baptism; I'm contending against baptism as a requirement for salvation. Obedience, yes; salvation, no.

By which you mean to tell us that baptism is essential to obedience. Therefore you agree with the minor premise which staes that baptism is essential to obedience.

But with a fit of rage you vehemently refuse to accept the inescapable conclusion that it is therefore true that baptism is essential to salvation.

Now, Connie, their are only three things that you can LOGICALLY do in this case.

You can deny that obedience is essential to salvation- your major premise.

Or you can deny that baptism is essential to obedience- your minor premise

Or you can deny that both premises

But if you accept both premises, as you appear to be doing, the conclusion is imposible reasonably avoid that baptism is essential to salvation!

So do chose Connie, which of the three options do you pick.

1. Do you deny that obedience is essential to salvation?

2. Or do you deny that baptism is essential to obedience?

3. Or do you deny both?

Do tell us because you are presently in the obsurd position of accepting both the Major and minor premise of the above syllogism but denying the inescapable conclusion that logically follows from them.

I beleive that anyone should be able to see that you appear to be saying:

Obedience is essential to salvation.

Baptism is essential to obedience.

But is is absolutely certian and unreasonable to believe that baptism is essential to salvation.

This is how unreasonable your agument on baptism truely is Connie.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I need to correct the following statement:

Then you also agree with the minor premise that baptism is essential to salvation with these words:

I intended to say: Then you agree that baptism is essential to OBEDIENCE with these words:

Now, Connie, do you feel better to know that I can admit and correct an error. I guess I am human after all! Ha!

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

E. Lee Saffold:

Regarding your attack on my "assertions", read a little church history. The Apostles Creed and others were developed over time as a summary of the faith because many of the believers were unable to read and the Bible was scarce (it had to be copied by hand for over 1000 years) even for those that could read. As for authority other than myself, open any book on the subject.

Danny Gabbard Sr.:

Denominations in the early church? None that were endorsed by the Bible that I can see. Paul wrote strongly against factions and divisions. I don't disagree with you on that. My point is that on the basics of the Christian faith we can be one Church (large C); while still attending a local congregation, a church (small c) particular that has reached some consensus on the mode of worship and the doctronal issues that are somewhat unclear. I believe denominations and doctrinal standards help in that, and will tend to prevent perversions of the faith by (for example) inadequately trained pastors who don't realize the issues they are addressing, or by unscrupulous people who will use a sham ministry for personal gain on television and radio, etc. You may believe that most doctrinal issues are clear to you, and I may believe they are clear to me (but different), so where does that get us? We can agree to disagree on issues that are not about our reliance on the finished work of Christ who saves us, and still be brothers and sisters in Christ. This forum should show that not everyone reads the same translation of the Bible, or understands the words exactly the same way.

We all rely on the same source of authority, in the scriptures; but be have been lead to different conclusions. Our human imperfections cause us to believe we are right and others are wrong, and the unresolved diffences are the reason denominations exist. Those who insist that emersion baptism as the only way are going to be in conflict with those who believe sprinkling is baptism, and when that conflict is within one fellowship it can destroy the proper relationship of mutual support and encouragement that should exist. Denominations may differ only on what songs or hymns should be sung, or in some cases whether they should be sung at all. Or they may differ on the length and central importance of the expositon of the Word, or other mode of worship issues. They may differ on church government issues that have nothing to do with doctrine, but everything to do with doing things "decently and in good order." The differnces among the churches, do not necessarilly need to be understood as divisions of the Church as long as the the churches adhere to our one Lord and his finished work on the cross for our salvation. Those that do not are not Christian, and that includes the cults that are loosly based on the Bible.

E. Lee Saffold and I seem to be a good example of why denominations are needed. He seems convinced his understanding of church organization, baptism, etc. are correct. I am just as convinced he is wrong about some issues, and could not in good conscience conform to his views if we were in the same local congregation. I would rather we worship separately, and continue to consider each other brothers in Christ; than worship together in a constant state of conflict within the local fellowship.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I just stopped her for a few minutes on a break, but MUST correct someting: (And I haven't read all of the postings since I last posted; I'm having them printed out now.

FAITH: all that's required FOR SALVATION

OBEDIENCE: Required for proof that we are in Christ, but NOT that we are actually in Christ; otherwise, no one could be saved. We are to confess our disobediences (sins) and he is faithful and just to forgive us our disobediences 9Sins).

BAPTISM: A step of obedience.

You guys are mixing apples and oranges by confusing salvation, obedience, faith, and works .

I have to get back to my work, but I sure am glad to discover that E. Lee is human! ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

John Wilson:

Your point seems to be the same as mine. It existed as a summary of the faith in the early church before it was formally adopted or documented. My reference books indicate the Apostles Creed dates from not later than the 4th century, "in it's present form." No specific date is given, because no specific council or synod is recorded as being the first to approve it (though not having records does not mean it didn't happen). You did not burst my bubble, but rather supported my point in the discussion with E. Lee Saffold.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Lee is HUMAN?! My bubble has been burst, I thought he was a superhero. *sigh* hahaha

A caveat to Connie before I start: I am responding to Brother Staffold's arguments ... and I usually don't pull punches. So if things get ugly, be warned and also realize that though my words may get caustic, it is still in a spirit of love.

I am not used to writing lengthy essays. Brother Staffold and I have very different debating styles. He seems to have a brawler style, overwhelming his opponent with blow after blow until they are knocked senseless, while I prefer to go in fast, deliver a few rabbit-punches and pointed jabs, and get back out quick. I figure I don't have to spend a lot of time explaining my points because usually I think they are obvious. Apparently that is not always the case. So I am going to give Brother Staffold a "Saffolding." >grin<

I did a little word study yesterday on the words "justified," "[have been] saved," and "righteous[ness]" (I also worked in "works" ... haha), because I think they all relate to the same thing. Now I was reading these verses, and I could only help but wonder what Brother Staffold's version reads.

The Bible clearly says we are justified by FAITH, not by works, not by law. Romans 1:17 says, "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" Now I suppose the New Staffold version reads, "... a righteousness that is by faith at first and afterwards works, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith and works.'" Again, Romans 3:28 says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Now by the law Paul means of course the Jewish law, but in extension he means any form of working to obtain our own salvation ... because we can't! I will explain why not later.

In Romans 4 we read,

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.

What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. [Romans 4:1-8, 23-25, 5:1-2]

I can only assume the New Staffold version reads, "to the man who works and trusts God" and "the man to whom God credits righteousness in addition to works."

Romans 8:33 says, "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies." Notice it is God who justifies, not us! Romans 10:10 says, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Notice it says you ARE justified by your heart belief. And that is a key point, we are justified by sincere heart belief, not just head belief. I will embellish on that thought later.

1 Corinthians 15:2 says, "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." By what Gospel? Paul goes on to say that it is Christ's efficacious death on the cross, and his resurrection. Not by any works we can do. That is why Jesus said, "This is the work that God requires, to believe on the One He has sent. Which is why He said on the cross, "It is Finished!"

In Romans 3:24, Paul says we are justified "freely" by his grace. Not justified to a point, from which point we must make it up with works of righteousness. Justified freely, completely, totally.

Paul continues to make this clear (as if it isn't already) in his letter to the Galatians, where he writes, "[We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). Not "justified by faith and observing the law." He continues:

Galatians 3:6-11, 24 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." ... So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Then he issues a stern and ominous warning: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

In His letter to the Ephesians he culminates his teaching, that it is the blood of Jesus that justifies us, and His completed work, and not by any righteous acts we can do. He writes,

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. [Ephesians 2:8-10]

What part of "not by works" don't you understand, Lee? Here, let me help.

NOT BY WORKS!

This kind of reminds me of another verse, one that Brother Staffold would probably like. It reads, "For we are saved by grace through faith, and that, after all we can do." Unfortunately, this verse does not appear in the Bible. It appears in the Book of Mormon, and it is soundly wrong. How can we ever know if we have done enough works of righteousness to have kept our end of the justification equation? We can't! It's impossible! Why? Because the Bible makes it very plain that we can in no way save ourselves. Because God is so Holy, so Righteous, so Perfect, so completly far above our measly selves (as Luther called himself a "maggot sack"), that Isaiah writes, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). We have offended an infinite God, and that is a debt we cannot pay! Quite literally, even the best acts of righteousness we can do, because of our sinfulness, end up looking (and smelling) like soiled Kotex maxipads to God (thats about as literal a translation of this verse as you can get without becoming too nauseating).

So where do works come in? I am not advocating "easy believism." I am not saying that Christians should become pew-warmers! Such luke-warm "Christians" disgust me! As Paul says, we are created to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do. So where do these good works come in? In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul goes on and says, "We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 1:3).

Did you notice that? Our work is produced by our faith! It is not in addition to our faith to help justify us before God, it flows out from our faith to justify us in the eyes of men. Assuming our faith is genuine. Which is what James was talking about when he said that a man was not justified by faith alone. In Chapter 2, verse 8, James sets up his whole brilliant section on faith as a dialog between him and a fictional detractor, who says, "Show me!" He is showing here that if we say we have "faith," but that "faith" does not produce any good works that people can see, as Paul said it would, then it is a dead faith, it is really no faith at all. But it is really not the works, but the faith from which the works are spawned, that save us.

And so in a sense then, we are justified by works. Because if we do not have a faith that develops good works, we are not justified. But if our faith does develop good works, we are justified. By faith, even as James points out, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. And as Paul so eloquently put it, "it is by faith from first to last."

So where does Baptism come in? As I have already said, it is not a work, because it is not something you do, it is something that you allow to happen to you. If it is a work then God's free gift of salvation must also be a work, because you allow Him to justify you through the blood of Christ. But obviously thats silly. He did the work on the Cross, not you. Baptism is then an act of faith, an act "to fulfill all righteousness," the means by which we "call upon the name of the Lord," as Paul did in the Book of Acts and writes about later in Romans.

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Brother John:

I only have a few minutes but it will only take a feww to respond to you. I thought you we going to argue that we are saved by faith only but I notice instaed that you only argued that we are NOT SAVED BY WORKS. Brother John I agree with that completely. In fact, I have never argued that we are saved by any "works of righteousness that we have done". I believe very much that we are saved by faith. A faith that is LIVING and leads us to those "ACTS OF FAITH" that you describe, one of which is BAPTISM. The others would be things like repentance. Or Confessing Christ with our mouth. (Romans 10:9,10). Brother John I agree with your "saffolding" me. You are welcome to do that anytime. Frankly I enjoy it. Especially when you agree with me. We are not saved by works. I have not ever said that we are. You may have thought that I said such but I did not. James uses the word "works" to refer to what you and I call "ACTS OF FAITH". When James says that "ye see then how that by WORKS a man is justified he is not talking about our being saved by WORKS in the same way that you describe. He is talking about actions that are promted by faith. If my faith does not lead me to obey God's command to repent it is a dead faith that cannot save me.(Heb5:8,9; Acts 3:19). If my faith does not lead me to confess Christ with my mouth (Romans 10:9,10). THen it is a dead faith that cannot save me. And if my faith does not lead me to humbly submit and obey God in Baptism ( MArk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; John 3:3-5; TItus 3:3-5) then is is a dead faith and cannot save me. If my faith does not lead me to Action in harmony with that faith it will not save me. Abraham was Justified by faith as you have so correctly pointed out. James even refers to that fact and tells us that Abraham was justified by faith and he tells us the point when he was so justified. It was WHEN his faith lead him to ACT IN FAITH to OFFER HIS SON ISAAC ON THE ALTER according to GOD'S commands. Yes we are saved by faith John and NOT BY WORKS. BUT WE ARE SAVED BY A LIVING FAITH THAT CAUSES US TO ACT IN OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S COMMANDS ( Heb. 5:8,9). We are not saved by a faith that is DEAD BECAUSE IT IS ALONE. "so then faith if it hath not works (ACTS OF FAITH) is DEAD being alone." (James 2:26). Yes Brother John we are saved by faith and NOT BY WORKS but we are saved by a LIVING ACTIVE FAITH that causes us to obey God in faith. In other words, obedience that as you have so well said, "proceeds from faith" and is CAUSED BY IT. We are not, therefore saved by a DEAD faith that is alone and produces no obedience to God. This is the reason that James plainly says, "ye see then how that by works (ACTIONS THAT PROCEED FROM AND ARE PRODUCED BY FAITH) a man is justfied and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." James 2:24.

This is the very reason that you, and no one else for that matter, can find a single verse of scripture that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE". In all that you wrote you did not produce such a verse and you never will because it is not in the scriptures. I think I understand, John. It seems that you believed that I was saying that we are saved by WORKS in addition to faith. That is not what I am saying nor is it what I have attempted to say at all. We are saved by a faith that causes us to act or obey God. We are not saved by a faith that is nothing more than an acceptance of the facts concerning Christ that does not cause us to obey all that he commands us including repentance, confession, and baptim. Our Faith must lead us to obey or we will not be saved by it (Heb. 5:8,9).

I only disagreed with your statement that we are saved "by grace through faith ALONE". Even Ephesians 2:8,9 does not use the word ALONE. It was supplied or added by you. I never said, that we are saved by WORKS. WE ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS, JOHN. WE ARE SAVED BY A LIVING FAITH THAT LEADS US TO OBEY GOD. Now that is the truth and I think it is also something that you agree with. I do not believe that you think we are saved by "FAITH ONLY" for if you did you would not have been able to say the things which you have said in your post. I am against the idea that we are saved by FAITH ONLY for the same reason that brother James was against it. (James 2:24) and honestly I think you are against that idea also.

I have to go for now but I will return to discuss this matter further with you if you think that we still disagree but I believe that I must have said something that made you think that I believe that we are saved by WORKS. I want to be very clear that WE ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS and I do not have to believe we are saved by "FAITH ONLY" in order to believe that we are NOT SAVED BY WORKS ( EPH. 2:8,9).

I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you brother John and that we can continue to enjoy the good fellowship that we have in the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. I know that you are truly concerned about the gospel and anyone who would say that we are saved by the works of the law has perverted the gospel of Christ and is fallen away from grace. (Gal.5:4). But also those who teach that we are saved by "FAITH ONLY" so that they are thereby lead to not obey GOD and repent of their sins and confess Christ with their mouth and submit to the work of God in baptism have also perverted the gospel of Christ and will prevent people from ever having access to the grace of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

E. Lee Saffold:

I am not entirely sure how Connie will respond to your question, but I will give you mine:

Obedience is an essential response of all believers, as the necessary consequence of their salvation. Those that are not saved are unable to be obedient because even the "good" they do is not done out of the love of God that is the first commandment, and those that are saved are unable to be obedient in all things; but if they are not working at it they give evidence (to those around them, but God knows the truth) they are not saved.

Baptism is obedience to God, and required of all believers; as is obedience to the Law of Love, and obedience to the 10 Commandments. I can find no evidence that any disobedience is overlooked, and no evidence that any disobedience is unforgivable. King David was an adulterer, a murderer, covetous, etc; and is also called a man after Gods own heart, because he repented and asked for forgiveness.

Conclusion: All believers ought to be baptized, and that follows conversion and salvation. I believe anyone who God in grace calls to faith in Jesus Christ, is saved by grace and through that gift of faith that is not of ourselves but of God. If that person were to die before they were baptized by man, God could and would forgive even that for a believer. If you want to know how long I believe someone can wait to be baptized and still die a redeemed sinner, my answer is as long as the wait is not out of disobedience.

P.S. For many hundreds of years immersion and sprinkling were used as modes of baptism, but the essential element is that it be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe immersion is certainly an acceptable mode of baptism, but I also believe sprinkling is baptism when done in obedience to the command. If I am mistaken, it is not out of disobedience or rebellion or lack of love. I am confident that in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, I have access to forgiveness if I am mistaken about the mode of baptism; and that all those millions of true Christians who were baptized by sprinkling over the centuries will be in Heaven just as forgiven for their sins as those who were immersed.

Connie:

Thank you for your comments (page 33, above). My concern about non-denominational congregations is certainly not intended to indicate that any local church is not a true church if they are not in a denomination. The Church is made up of believers, and not membership in any denomination including the denomination calling itself The Restoration Movement. It is a personal concern, that without some accounability both within the congregation and within a larger church polity, over time some drifting from the truth of the gospel is more likely to occur. It sounds like the Statement of Faith your church uses has provided some doctrinal stability. The concern I have is that in such a situation, what is it that would prevent a strong pastor from influencing the congregation to make some "minor" revisions to the Statement of Faith that may not actually be that minor? When that happens, those that see the issues differently change churches.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Connie,

I'll reply in the other thread ("... think on these things"), when I have time, to your comments to me in that thread. Meanwhile, I have just a few minutes between meetings and thought I'd respond quickly to your comments, above, on what I said sometime back in this thread.

You are missing the point of what Bro. Danny Gabbard and I have said about dualism, and what I said about gnosticism.

The problem with dualism (especially evident in gnostic dualism, but inherent in any kind of dualism) is not that you can divide most categories into two, e.g. light and darkness, matter and spirit, good and evil, etc. Rather, dualism sees all these things as linked, so that the whole of existence consists of only two principles (often thought of as equal and opposite and both eternal). On the one side you have God, light, spirit, good, etc. On the other side you have Satan, darkness, matter (including our physical bodies), evil, etc. Logically, this means that everything physical belongs to "the evil one", and nothing physical can be good or can accomplish anything good. The gnostics went so far in their beliefs (but at least they were consistent) as to deny that God could really become man. The Docetic sect of gnosticism argued that Jesus only APPEARED to be human. Gnosticism and other early dualistic heresies in the church led to extreme asceticism with some, and libertarianism with others. "If only the spirit is really important, then what does it matter what the body does?" (Paul may be partly arguing against the beginnings of this idea in what he says in Romans 6.)

How does this relate to the current debate about baptism (immersion) in relation to being saved by grace through faith? There is an enormous difference between trying to EARN your salvation through "works" or even through "obedience", and conceding that a single simple step may yet be required by God as a "test" of our faith. Anyone who can't see this must not have much experience with religions (and Christian cults) which really do teach salvation by works.

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid that Bro. Lee Saffold and others who lay so much stress on "obedience" as "required" are doing "our" side a disservice. What was the O.T. teaching on works but an obsession with absolute obedience to God-given commands? -- sometimes done hypocritically, and looking for loopholes, but still trying to obey "to the letter"? Paul argues in the book of Romans that there is no way that works/obedience can save us unless our obedience is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, and such absolute perfection only existed with Jesus Christ.

But the Bible is full of examples of people whose faith was "credited to them as righteousness", not because they obeyed every command, but because they did some decisive thing, by faith, when God asked it of them. The main difference between baptism for us and Abraham leaving Ur and later taking Isaac to be sacrificed is that ours is a much smaller easier act and is one that is uniform for all, rather than individual. Someone else mentioned Naaman. Was Naaman cleansed by the water? Absolutely not. It was because of his faith. Would he have been cleansed if he had NOT dipped seven times in the Jordan? You tell me.

I see only two reasons -- connected to each other -- for rejecting plain Bible teaching that immersion is required for salvation. One is a complete misunderstanding of Paul's argument in Romans about the impossibility of being saved by works/obedience, and the other is the dualistic idea that since the body is not spirit, nothing good can come out of any physical act.

Regarding the gnostics and knowledge, I think we see that heresy coming into churches today as well. The "knowledge" that the gnostics thought would save them was NOT "book larnin'" -- it was something esoteric, available only to the initiated, and often very personal. It led to them developing all kinds of secret rites. Fortunately we do not see that today in mainstream Christianity. But one of Bro. Barry's reasons for rejecting immersion as being required for salvation was because he KNEW that he was saved at one age when he had his "salvation experience", but was not immersed until a couple of years later. I don't think you stated it quite as bluntly, Connie, but some of your arguments seem to say much the same thing. Apparently Barry and others (including you?) prefer to interpret Scripture in the light of personal experience (their own special "knowledge") than to interpret experience in the light of Scripture.

I have a friend in the church here in Hong Kong. He very much likes the ideals of the Restoration Movement, and sought us out after having been associated with a Church of Christ / Christian Church in Australia. He wants to be a part of our "brotherhood". But he refuses to be immersed. Why? Because of an intense "conversion experience" (personal knowledge) he had when he was about 11 years old. He does think "baptism" is important, but he doesn't think it matters what "mode" is used or when in one's life it occurs, so since he was sprinkled as an infant in the Anglican church, he feels that was enough.

As with the gnostics, personal "knowledge" is preferred over plain Bible teaching.

Time to go prepare for my next meeting. See you all again on Monday.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I turned off the bold...

The guilty party was Mr Batman. He forgot his bold end tag...

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Danny Gobbard:

I see you are as closed in your views as E. Lee Saffold. See my note on the other thread with the same name, about the doctrinal othodoxy established by the Restoration Movement. You asked why denominations are necessary now. That brief and dismissive assumption that you have the final word on the subject of what is a baptism acceptable to God is why denominations exist.

You believe baptism means immersion as a literal translation, but admit that as early as 150 A.D. it was not understood to be that specific. At 150 A.D., they were 1850 years closer to the new testiment events, within a generation of the apostolic letters, and they still actually used the original languages. Don't you think they might have known the meaning a little better than we do now? And that if they did not use immersion as the only mode of baptism they did it within the meaning they understood from the Word of God? Do you think God would allow his Church to just get it wrong for nearly 2000 years?

I believe that if immersion was not the exclusive mode of baptism as early as 150 A.D., it is likely it was not the exclusive mode of baptism even earlier; perhaps used by the apostles when an adequate water supply was not available for immersion. I don't know that, and have no evidence that is the case; but the point is that 2000 years after the events no one knows the specifics of what occured with the certainty you seem to believe you know.

I don't need to defend modes of baptism further, but the reason this is an issue is that this presumption that the Restoration Movement has the final answer, and the correct interpretation, is why I believe it is a denomination with a standard of orthodoxy just as specific as any other denomination; and also why denominations exist. You seem to believe that only those who have been immersed are being obedient to the command, and are saved. Most of the rest of the Christians of the world do not so limit the grace of God.

While I may still understand you to be a somewhat misguided child of God, and a brother in Christ; your beliefs would cause you to conclude that I am a sinner still in need of salvation because I was not baptized by immersion, and much of the rest of the world's Christians will be damned along with me. Do you see why that point of view tends to damage the necessary koinonia in a local congregation if we tried to worship in the same fellowship?

Your position makes it harder for you to associate with other denominations. I see now why the Restoration Movement is against the other denominations. You simply believe the rest of us are wrong, and are damned sinners without hope of salvation until we repent of our disobedience and are re-baptized by immersion. 2000 years of biblical scholarship, and somehow everyone missed the real message of salvation. You must either believe that many of the great heroes of faith throughout history are damned, because they were not immersed, or you should reconsider your position on this issue. You seem to believe it is not the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross that saves, but immersion.

I am sorry to say that when carried to that extreme, your beliefs seem to me to be works based; and that the immersion baptism you believe is a condition of salvation would make it no longer a matter of grace and faith, but of human action and works.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Brother Rees:

You have said the following in reference to my discussion of the fact that we are not saved by FAITH ONLY:

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid that Bro. Lee Saffold and others who lay so much stress on "obedience" as "required" are doing "our" side a disservice. What was the O.T. teaching on works but an obsession with absolute obedience to God-given commands? -- sometimes done hypocritically, and looking for loopholes, but still trying to obey "to the letter"? Paul argues in the book of Romans that there is no way that works/obedience can save us unless our obedience is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, and such absolute perfection only existed with Jesus Christ.

Brother Rees, if something is true you should not hate to say it. It will not hurt me at all if you tell me the truth. I do not even care how you tell it to me. You can say with as much VIGOR as you like. I want the truth and I am thankful to God for anyone that will help me know it even if they must speak harshly to me to help me understand it. There is no need for apologies at all.

You complain that I am doing a disservice because I lay so much stress on obedience as being required. Now brother Rees, if you can show that I am laying any more stress on that subject than the word of God lays on that subject I will be happy to stop doing our side as you call it, such a grave disservice. But the plain fact is that the scriptures do lay stress on that subject and I stress those very passages in this discussion because of those who are arguing that obedience is not necessary to our salvation because we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. No they do not care that the scriptures do not in any place say that we are saved by faith only. They STRESS it anyway. The scriptures tell us,  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 to all them THAT OBEY HIM (Heb. 5:8,9). Then Jesus plainly said, Not every one that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven. But he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21) He also asked, Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). Paul says concerning the coming of Christ, And to you who are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus: Who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might. (2Thess. 1:7-9). Now Brother Rees, it should be clear from just those few verses that God has STRESS obedience far more than have I. Add this to the very simple fact that there is not one single passage in the entire word of God that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. Those who are teaching this false doctrine are STRESSING it far more than anyone is stressing obedience. They are STRESSING something that is completely contrary to Gods word and thus we must at this point stress what the word of God says. Now I do not have any side to be on unless it is GODS SIDE. Stressing his word on this matter does no disservice to God.

Then you say:

Paul argues in the book of Romans that there is no way that works/obedience can save us unless our obedience is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, and such absolute perfection only existed with Jesus Christ.

Now Brother Rees, I have not said in any place that WORKS SAVES us. I have shown that the scriptures teach that we are saved by obedience. (Heb. 5:8,9). I have show that James is referring when he uses the word works to something very different than that which Paul was talking about in Romans and Ephesians. James says,  ye see then how that by WORKS a man is justified and not by faith only. James 2:24. Now clearly he explains himself by pointing out, Was not our father Abraham justified by WORKS when he offered his son Isaac on the alter. Thou seest that that FAITH WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS, AND BY WORKS WAS FAITH MADE PERFECT: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. James 2:21- 23. You see Abraham was not considered to have BELIEVED GOD UNTIL HE OBEYED GOD BY OFFERING HIS SON ISAAC ON THE ALTER. Therefore a person is not considered by GOD to be a believer until he has become obedient to God.

Now I have not argued that we are saved by some kind of perfect obedience" as you claim. I have said no such thing. I am talking about being obedient in the same way that Gods word talks about it. I am talking about the same kind of obedience that Abraham demonstrated. God had a test for him and he obeyed God. Now did Abraham obey God PERFECTLY in ALL THINGS of the LAW? No he did not because he lived before the Law of Moses was given. Did he obey God PERFECTLY IN ALL THINGS? No he did not. But he obeyed God in those matters where in God tested his faith. In your words that I like very much, he did the decisive thing. It is a fact Brother Rees that obedience is a test of our faith. James says so. He tells us, for as the body apart from the spirit is dead even so faith if it hath not works is dead being alone. Now I keep using the word works here because the scripture uses that word. But it does not mean, in James, works of righteousness, which we have done. It means simply Actions that are commanded by God which we are caused or prompted by our faith in God to obey. If our faith does not lead us to obey God it will not save us. Now if Abraham had not obeyed God by OFFERING HIS SON ISAAC ON THE ALTER he would not have been justified in the sight of God and God would not have reckoned his refusal and unwillingness to obey as righteousness. It was not until Abrahams faith moved him to offer his son Isaac on the alter that he was counted righteous. It is not until our faith leads us to repent of our sins, confess Christ, and be baptized that God counts us as righteous.

So you misrepresent what I have been saying when you claim that I am advocating that we are saved by a system of PERFECT obedience. My favorite passage of scripture for all of my life has been:

 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD OF JESUS His son cleanseth us of all sin. If we say that we have no sins, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7-9).

Now that takes care of our problem with being unable to produce PERFECT obedience. But it does nothing to change the fact that if our faith does not lead us to obey Christ we will not be saved (Hebrews 5:8,9). If our faith is so dead that it does not cause us to obey the gospel we will be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:9-11). Now that is the truth Brother Rees! Faith ONLY does not save us. And I am trying to explain that truth to everyone. You therefore do the cause of Christ a grave disservice by complaining that I am should not STRESS the truth that we must submit to the Lordship of Christ by being obedient to him or we will not be saved. (Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; Matthew 7:21; 2 Thess 1:7-11; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16).

James was guilty of the same disservice that you accuse me of and you have misunderstood him as much as you have completely misunderstood me.

He is the one that said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY (James 2:24). So I stand with the inspired James on this matter and if that is a disservice to your side then so be it.

I do pray that life is well for you in Hong Kong. I miss China and look forward to going there again some day. I pray fervently for you and your family and that the peace of God will always abide with you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Dbvz:

Once again all you do is assert the same thing again without proof as follows:

Regarding your attack on my "assertions", read a little church history. The Apostles Creed and others were developed over time as a summary of the faith because many of the believers were unable to read and the Bible was scarce (it had to be copied by hand for over 1000 years) even for those that could read. As for authority other than myself, open any book on the subject.

Now you claimed the following

The New Testament church may have had something like the Apostles Creed, but it was not recorded as a creed for about 300 years in any official form. Some of the writings of Paul seem to indicate a simple summary of the faith that was memorized in an age when many of the believers could not read.

But you have still not offered any evidence to prove either of those claims. You have not shown us and documented reason that we should accept your claim that the New Testament Church had anything like the apostles Creed. The very fact that is was never recorded in the New Testament or in any other record of the times of the New Testament as you have admitted is evidence that you cannot prove from anything written in the New Testament or anything written in the first century that the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH had any such CREED. And if your claim is true that many of the believers of that time could not read then they would not have been able to read any written copies of it any more that they could read the New Testament itself. However you also do not offer any evidence to support you claim of general illiteracy in the first century Church. Now you have not produced one shed of evidence to support your claim. All you do is tell me to read any book on the subject but you do not even mention any books that have evidence in them that supports your claim. Assertions without proof are useless, dbvz. Your assertions therefore remain unproven and they appear to be improvable because this is now the third time that I have asked you to give us evidence that supports your claim so we can examine it for ourselves to see if it is really true. And one again you have not been able to produce it. All you do is simply reassert you cannot prove a proposition that you have already demonstrated at least. So we have still not hear you refer to any authority higher than yourself to support your assertions!

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

JOHN WILSON: THE SCHOLAR!!

MRBATMAN: YOU ARE MY HERO!!

I actually cried when I read your post! God Bless You. As I'm sure He already has.

The writing last night was good for me to do, but the reading of all the posts was what was most valuable. I'm getting started later tonight than last night, so I don't know how long I can keep at it, but I'm energized.

I'm going to claim a 'handicap' here and bring up I Timothy 5:1:

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him a a father; and the younger men as brethren;

THE ELDER WOMEN AS MOTHERS; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

I was able to get the IGENT (Interlinear Greek/Engish New Testament) but 'The Septuagint Version, Greek/English' (TSVGE) is on back-order.

I'll pick up where I left off last night: (Page 40)

On the thread where I, out of curiosity, mentioned wondering how some of you could be on the Internet so much: As I stated, I am retired, so have a little time. (But it is 11:00 P.M., and I'm just starting another long post and have to get up early tomorrow.

I WASN'T BEING CRITICAL, and I KNOW how hard pastors work; also Elders. When we were new Christians, we often spent all of our free time helping at church, even being the first ones there, and the last to leave.

Also, my husband was on our school board for 12 of the 15 years we were at the school, only going off every three years as required by the school constitution. Then, when our last child graduated, in 1982, and he went off the board at school, he was elected to the church board for another 6 years, I think.

I was president of our Mothers' Fellowship for two years. I know churches are a lot of work.

And I'm sorry I made an assumption, Lee, that you were a pastor. I'm getting air sickness from jumping to conclusions. ;-)

After what has been written today, what I had composed to write last night seems a little harsh.

I think, John, that I will comment on what you say in your post;

You say you were 'soundly chastised in this very forum for my views'.

Here is what I wrote, before I discovered that you are no pushover:

You were chastized and then you capitulated to them, thereby rewarding them. I've learned through caring for many children in my life to not reward bad behavior by giving in. That is what they are exhibiting - - bad behavior.

On page 41: (Lee)

In response to the whole page, I stated that I was trying to see the fruit in your life, but all I am seeing is leaves. But then you surprised me by admitting an error! Aha! Growth! Hope! So now I don't feel so stern.

I guess I will address some of the things I thought and prayed about yesterday. 'Better the rebuke of a friend' than the kiss of Judas; slightly paraphrased version of a verse in Proverbs.

Part of the reason I discount your long postings is because they are filled with inaccuracies and false witness. I have to say that when you rail on and on, with no paragraphs to speak of, I do turn you off. You'd better develop a new approach if you want others to address what you say.

And the last bit of criticism, because I really don't like to hurt even someone who hurts me: You are what my mother would have called a 'pain in the neck'. But of course I say that in a spirit of love. ;-) ;-)

Also, (pg. 42) I wasn't judging you, I was asking a question. And I didn't even DEMAND an answer. I WOULD judge a fellow believer if he/she didn't obey God's laws (the thou-shalt-nots of both old and new testaments.) In that case I would not even eat with that person.

But spending a little too much time on the Internet? Uh-uh. And, also, God has written in our hearts His commandments, and I don't need another Christian (other than maybe my husband or my pastor, or one of my dear friends) to tell me what's O.K. and what is not. So I 'Do unto others as I would have them do unto me' - - the 'Golden Rule', remember?

It reminds me of the story of two Christian acquaintances conversing and one said to the other: "God has revealed to me that you should do such-and-such." And the other one responded: "That's funny; He didn't say anything to me about it". ;-0

On Page 44:

I see I'm being chastised (on a future page) for abusing God's word. That's why I put my words in parentheses; I see I should also have included an explanation that what was in parentheses were my words.

I really think that you are being less than reasonable here.

On pp.45 and 46:

I think the words are getting used incorrectly, in many instances, such as justification, santification, etc. When we are 'justified' we are made defensible by Christ's atoning death; when we are 'sanctified', we are set apart for His use. In the 4th paragraph on page 45 where it says, "By works is a man justified and not by faith only." I couldn't agree more! But justification is not salvation!

Also, I beg to differ with you when you say that, "Anyone who does not obey Christ will not be saved". Christians disobey God all the time. Then, if they are wise, they will confess, and He'll forgive them, and cleanse them from all unrighteousness (sin - falling short of the Glory of God.) If they throw in a little repentance, I'm sure God will be overjoyed! (I didn't read that last part in the Scriptures!)

Look all of these up, Lee: repentance; obedience; confession; salvation, faith, justification; sanctification. You seem to use some of the concepts interchangeably, and they are all separate concepts.

On page 48:

I had a long piece on the definitions of reviler and railing, but I can't find it. Suffice it to say that it has to do with abusive speech, which I feel has no place in a Christian discussion. (I Corinthians 5:11-13)

Oh. I see I already typed that. Well, it bears repeating.

Page 52: (Middle of page).

I KNOW Paul said they should be baptized! What he DIDN'T SAY was that it was necessary for salvation. And he didn't baptize more than a few.

Page 53:

Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus, and immediately said: "Who art Thou, Lord?" Can we agree that he was at that point a believer? Then a few verses later, it says he received the Holy Ghost, so was that the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit' that my other son, Tim and his wife talk about? I think probably so; THEN he was baptized, which is now seveal days later than when he believed.

I can't remember who said it in this thread, (maybe dbvz) but if the person is not failing to be baptized BECAUSE OF DISOBEDIENCE the time could acceptably be a long time. (Hope that's what you said, dbvz).

Page 54:

Top of page.

Lee, this statement is way off the mark, in my estimation. Jesus is the Son of God, the co-Creator of our world, and sinless from the foundation of everything, and you say that he would have been a sinner just like you and me! I won't accept that.

Are you sure YOU'VE been born again? You've been implying that I and others are not, but you say something like this?

II Timothy 1: 9 - 12:

Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (times eternal);

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death, and has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel;

Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles. (I just remembered: Paul told TIMOTHY to 'do the work of an Evangelist, preaching in season and out of season.')

For the which [sic] cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

Hey! That's a good one for both predestination AND Eternal Security!

Another one in that vein:

Philippians 1: 6:

Being confident of this very thing: that He which has begun a good work in you will perform [perfect] it until the day of Jesus Christ.

Well, All:

I'm eager to get this off and read your new posts. I'm not sure you want to have me continue this. I was doing it to answer Lee's questions, but I don't think I can go up to 80 some pages, and in fact, I don't think you'll want me to.

Lee, I hope I have not been too harsh. I'm praying continually for wisdom, as I hope you are, too.

In Jesus, for eternity

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

dbvz;

You say, "At 150 A.D., they were 1850 years closer to the new testiment events, within a generation of the apostolic letters, and they still actually used the original languages. Don't you think they might have known the meaning a little better than we do now?"

Does it make sprinkling right then, just because they were practicing it so early? Even earlier than A.D. 150 .... around A.D. 50 or so, they were breaking up into parties ("denominations"), accepting gnosticism, antinomianism, Nicolaitanism, all sorts of things. Things that also were not in the apostolic letters and even went against them, as sprinkling does. Does it make these things right also, because the church was doing it back then? Are we to take our doctrine from what the early church was doing, right or wrong, or from Scripture? From what we "feel" is right, or from what the Word of God says?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Danny, you are correct, and

Connie, please pay attention to my words:

Lee and I are in complete agreement; it was just a semantic problem. When Lee says you are not saved by faith only, but also by works, all he really means is that you are only saved by a faith that produces works, not that works can in any way justify us. I am glad to hear this from Lee, I was sweating there for a minute myself! =)

God bless you all .... and Connie, thats the second time someone's called me a hero in this forum. I am honored.

Humbly,

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie, I usually try to stay out of most debate but on occasion will get involved. I'm really in a quandry here because I have been confused as to the method of debate we are suppose to be using. You say on the one hand that people like Danny, Lee and Sam are unloving yet you told Lee he was "a pain in the neck." I believe I saw on another thread you called someone a heretic or at the very least they had heretical beliefs. You also called Danny rude and then defame my mother-in-law, which was terribly abusive and I was personally offended by that one. These, just to name a few. Is it because you have a disclaimer , of sorts, that says "I say this in a spirit of love?" I have found that you are not the only one that when backed in a corner and have no answer that you cry "foul" and say such and such is unloving, rude, a legalist or whatever, but then turn around and be just as mean, rude as mentioned above. Your arguements tend to be inconsistant to the point that I'm not sure I understand what you believe. I get the impression that you believe in the Doctrine of illumination, that the Holy Spirit leads you, in what to believe, to say, etc. A special revelation if you will. Is it this spirit that allows you to have this double standard? What happens when someone that believes as you do , tells you that the Spirit said "Connie was wrong" then what do you do? How do you tell which spirit is right and which is wrong? This is just one of many questions I have. But the main one is the rules of debate. My hat goes off to men like Lee, Sam and Danny because they have the energy and tough skin to deal with such double standards and dare I say, hypocritical attitudes, not just from Connie but others as well. I'm not as tough skinned as the aforementioned guys and it keeps people like me from getting involved more often. If we can not speak our opinion much less the truth, without be labeled unloving, a heretic and such, debate really has no purpose and this forum is useless. I say all of this in " a spirit of love." Thanks

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Danny Gabbard:

You wrote of me, "As I thought, you said, "The Bible says that, but I believe....." " Where did you get that idea? What I have always said is that the Bible is the final authority. To understand any one passage it needs to be interpreted in the context of the entire Word of God.

As for baptism, my point was that the conclusion you stated that baptism MEANS immersion is a judgement open to challenge. The early church, perhaps as early as the first century, did not consider immersion the only and exclusive mode of baptism - and they were closer to the events and the language and should have known if baptism and immersion are identical in meaning in the Word of God.

The problem between us, as I see it, is that when you see the word "baptism" in the Bible in has the specific meaning of immersion; and when I see the word it has a broader meaning that includes pouring and sprinkling that is symbolic of the washing away of our sins. For you the command MEANS immersion, and to fail to be immersed is disobedience of the command. For me the command MEANS baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and the mode of baptism is performed in obedience to the command. I have not refused to obey a command to be immersed. I have obeyed a command to be baptized.

My wife suggested I remind you that the thief on the cross was not baptized after his confession by any mode other that the sweat on his body, and Jesus said he would be with Him in Paradise.

None of you have responded to my comment about many of the heroes of faith throughout history who were not immersed being damned, if you are right about immersion baptism being required to be saved. Give that some thought; and consider whether God could in love and justice consider them unforgiven sinners because they were not immersed, but were obedient. Why do you believe pouring or sprinkling baptism an unforgivable error?

I thought I could leave this alone, but I had to see how you responded, and then could not resist a rebuttal.

I really believe you have made immersion baptism a condition of salvation in a way that is not justified by the plain language of the Bible, and it is a human "work" of obedience as you interpret it. Do you really believe humans can frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit who convicts them of sin, and brings them to faith in Christ; by simply getting the mode of baptism wrong? God will not fail to save those he has chosen; and we are saved by God, not by ANYTHING we do or fail to do. Obedience is required as a response, but the finished work of Christ is sufficient for ALL my sins (even those I commit by ommission or ignorance). If I have misunderstood baptism, and I don't believe I have, it would include even that.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Hello, All:

I knew I should NEVER use satire or sarcasm, because it is so easily misunderstood.

JOHN:

When I called you a hero, it was because you had said that you thought Lee was a SUPERhero. You had just said that your bubble had been burst in finding out that Lee was human. I figured this was a light-hearted approach to a serious discussion, which was not only appropriate (IMHO), but welcome.

So I started responding in kind. But I did learn, in prior years, that humor is based on the put-down. I'm not always against that (in this case I wasn't), but when you have a forum such as this where people come and go and have not read all of the prior posts, you don't really know, since you can't read expressions, what is humor and what is not.

Also, I remember in one person's post that he liked your e-mail name, and said you could call him 'Captain America'. Who was that? I thought that was very funny. He was the one who also said that dbvz's name must be Hebrew, since there were no vowels, and offered to sell him some vowels. I thought that was very funny stuff.

But I'm a little confused, after your very inspired post, what it is about which you agree and disagree with Lee. Can you explain that?

I would like to apologize to Danny, Jenny and Danny's mother for kidding in the way I did, because I never INTENTIONALLY meant to hurt them.

The meaning of that witticism was because I felt Danny was being extremely rude, so he must either be very young (because mature people are USUALLY not so brash) or had no mother to teach him manners. That WAS unkind, but its intent was humor; which I should have remembered from long ago is based on the put-down.

And I know that even when we teach our children manners, they don't always exhibit them. So I meant no criticism of Danny's mother at all.

JENNY:

Have you read everything which has been said in every thread? Unless you print it out and study it a little and mark up who said what to whom, you can't really get the whole picture; especially when the formatting is so erratic.

If you go back and read all of the postings, you will see who started what. I've only been here for about two weeks, but I see where there was a big row with Nelta a couple of weeks before I got here.

Let me say this: (kindly, I hope)

I don't know how old any of you are,, but in MY life, I've discovered that when God wants me to make some changes in my life, and I still haven't learned whatever lesson He wants me to address, He will bring SOMEONE ELSE into my life to help me learn it.

So Nelta can leave, dbvz can leave, I can leave, and whoever else has been offended can leave, but God will bring someone else into your life eventually to help you learn the lesson.

The Gospel, ALL BY ITSELF is an offense, but that doesn't mean we are to be offensive.

(I sometimes say that we are a 'peculiar people' (from Scripture) but I don't think God wants us to be THAT peculiar!) ;-)

I see where you think I have been offensive. You don't know how many sharp rejoinders I've deleted! I am asking God to control my thoughts and words. But I will fail.

If you read back to all of the postings and put Danny's or Lee's name in the place of the person they are rebuking and the rebukee's name in the place of Danny's or Lee's, you might get a picture of how the person who is being flamed feels.

Mention has been made of how Jesus rebuked Peter and also how Paul rebuked Peter. Galatians 1 describes that encounter. I'm not going to print that out here, but I was struck by HOW MILD that was, but how definite.

Paul was speaking the truth in love. Not blizzards of abusive language that denigrates the hearer. Even Jesus, in His anger, didn't use REAMS of invective.

Please Jenny, print out those threads so you can get the whole picture.

LEE:

When I said that about 'a pain in the neck', I really was trying to be funny, but I apologize. It wasn't edifying. And on page 91, where I claim a 'handicap', I was trying to be funny. That's what the smiley faces are for. In fact, that was LOL. One is a smile; two is a chuckle; and several are for LOL. (Laugh out loud).

Being 66, and having reared five children, and occasionally caring for one or two of seven grandchildren necessitates developing a sense of humor.

LEE:

To get to the posting on page 54 where you make a statement I question on page 94: Please don't answer if you don't want to. I don't like to nag.

I am going to be in my study of the Scriptures, which will enable me to answer your questions, for quite some time, because one of the Bibles I want is back-ordered. I don't want to say that my interpretation is correct until I've done this study, and perhaps then I will agree with you. ;-) ;-) And maybe Hell will freeze over. ;-) ;-) Oops! I did it again! < That was said in jest!!!

'A merry heart doeth good like a medicine'.

I really have come to feel a sisterly affection for all of you, and don't want to hurt anyone, but also do not like to be insulted or have my words twisted.

DANNY:

On page 96, middle of page:

You make a statement which I think is referring to what I said on page 93, and referring to an earlier post on page 53.

You need to re-read that. You are putting your doctrinal spin on that. I said:

Paul was 1.) blinded on the road to Damascus

2.) received the Holy Ghost

3.) was baptized, a few days later

I believe he was a Christian from the time He said: "Who art Thou, Lord? and the Lord said, "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest."

And he trembling and astonished said: "Lord, what would You have me to do?" And the Lord said unto him: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

..

..

And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision: "Ananias." And he said: "Behold, I am here, Lord".

11: And the Lord said unto him: "Arise, and go into the street which is called 'Straight', and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul(Paul) of Tarsus: for behold, He prayeth, 12: and hath seen in a vision a man named 'Ananias' coming in and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight.

..

..

[Boy, this is taking quite a bit of time, since there were no cars or planes at this time!] (Connie's words in quotes)

17: And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said: "Brother Saul(Paul), the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

My question: Any ideas on why Jesus didn't say "Be baptized!" when Paul first asked him, when he was obviously converted and wanted to be obedient (and was) until several days later?

That is from Acts, Chapter 9.

I Corinthians: 13: 1 - 13: - 14: 1.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all FAITH, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

Love suffers long and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up,

Does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, takes no account of evil;

Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things; endures all things.

Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face-to-face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abides faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love.

14:1

Follow after love and yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy.

Then he goes into the spiritual gifts. (As you all know).

This isn't Tiddly Winks we're playing, Folks. This is the 'time of the end', and the world is dying, and we're arguing over inanities.

May God have mercy on our souls.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Danny is right. You can look it up in a Strong's concordance if you like.

The Greek word for sprinkle is "rhantizo," and is used in Hebrews to describe the sprinkling of blood on the altar. The Greek word for pour is "ekeheo," and is used in places such as Revelation to describe the pouring from a bowl. The Greek word "baptizo" always means to immerse in water (unless the context is clear it is meant figuratively).

The Greeks were extremely, almost excruciatingly, precise with their word usage, baptism always meant immersion. It would be like someone today saying that to be "immersed" in water sometimes meant to have water sprinkled on you. That would be as absurd to us as it would be to a Greek.

"Baptism" was always immersion in the New Testament. The passages don't even make sense if you read "sprinkle" or "pour" when you see the word "baptism." (Try it!) The only reason why the verse was and still is transliterated rather than literally translated is because it would soundly condemn those who sprinkle and pour, and call that "baptism." It would be plain for everyone to see that they were in error.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie :

You seemed to be overly concerned about my words concerning the baptism of Christ. I now quote your words:

Lee, this statement is way off the mark, in my estimation. Jesus is the Son of God, the co-Creator of our world, and sinless from the foundation of everything, and you say that he would have been a sinner just like you and me! I won't accept that. Connie, in the above quotation from you it appears that you are referring to my following words:

Now Connie, if you knew the answer why did you ask the question? Of course he said he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. And you are correct in saying that it was not for the remission of Sins for he indeed had no sins and if you were Jesus Christ you would not have to be baptized for the remission of sins either. But you are not Jesus, now are you Connie? And neither were those on the day of Pentecost who were baptized for the remission of sins. But, Jesus was baptized to keep from becoming a sinner. For if he had not followed the commands God had given through John the Baptist calling upon all to be baptized he would have become a sinner because he would have disobeyed God. Notice that we are told that the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves by not being baptized of John. (Luke 7:30). If Jesus had not been baptized of John he would have been just like the Lawyers and Pharisees who had rejected the counsel of God against themselves. He would have been guilty of sin in disobeying God. If refusing to submit to the baptism of John was a rejection of the counsel of God what are we to think about neglecting to obey God in the Baptism of Christ? So there is your answer, Connie. Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness and to follow the counsel of God so that he could remain sinless. If he had not been baptized he would have been a sinner like you and me. Also notice that the Holy Spirit did not even come upon Christ until after he was baptized! How about the idea that Christ was also baptized to receive the spirit just as Christians today are baptized to receive the remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit! Just some things for you to think about. But the fact that Christ was baptized does not justify you in teaching that we can be saved by Faith only. Your question has nothing to do with our discussion. The fact that God expected even the Son of God, the father, to be baptized gives no sinful man any excuse for fighting against baptism. If the Son of God himself did it and we are to follow Christ we must follow him into the water! That is not an argument in your favor Connie. In fact it is against everything you are saying. Let me ask you, did Jesus practice FAITH ONLY? No, our lord set the example of Faith and OBEDIENCE to God.

Now your response to this you act as if I have said that our Lord was a sinner! I have said no such thing. I have said that if he had refused to be baptized of John he WOULD HAVE BECOME A SINNER. God sent John the Baptist to baptize and those who rejected his baptism rejected the counsel of God against themselves. ( Luke 7:30). If Jesus had not been baptized of John he would not have fulfilled all righteousness and would have been disobedient to God the father. Such disobedience would have been sinful. But our Lord always OBEYED God in all that he required of men. If he had not done so he would have committed sin.

Now why you are so upset that I suggest that if our Lord had ever disobeyed God he would have been a sinner I do not know. For sin is the transgression of the law. ( 1 John 3:4). The Writer of Hebrews tells us, For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE YET WITHOUT SIN. So Christ was tempted to sin and it was possible for him to disobey but HE CHOSE TO BE PERFECT IN HIS OBEDIENCE.

Connie, if any person on earth could have EXCUSED himself from Gods command to be baptized, it would have been Christ our Lord. In fact, I am certain that those of you who persist in teaching that we do not have to be baptized sincerely wish that Christ had refused. For just think what a great argument you would have if he refused to be baptized. For then you could say, Jesus was never baptized so I will not be baptized either? But our Lord knew that you would try that and he chose to set the example and fulfill all righteousness and urged John to baptize him. He took away one of your best arguments. For He is the one that told us that we must be baptized in order to be saved. HEAR HIM:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned. Mark 16:16.

So once again Connie you are diametrically opposed to Christ:

CONNIE SAYS: BAPTISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION.

CHRIST SAYS: HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED: ( MARK 16:16).

It is that simple Connie. Christ said belief plus baptism equal salvation and Connie denies the very words of Our LORD.

CONNIE SAYS: BAPTISM DOETH NOT ALSO SAVE US.

CHRIST THROUGH PETER SAYS: BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US. ( 1 Peter 3:21).

Now Connie, I chose to believe CHRIST over you. I do pray for you Connie that Our Blesses Lord will relieve the severe pain in your neck that I have given you. For that is surely not my objective. My objective is to show you the truth that you might be saved from your sins and lead out of your delusions that your human creeds and doctrines of men have so deceived you into believing. I do pray that you will have that peace that passeth all understanding that comes only to those who submit and obey Our Lord Jesus Christ. Hebrews 5:8,9.

Read that verse Connie. It says, 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 TO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM. Heb 5:8,9.

Now Connie, this verse makes it abundantly clear that obedience is essential to salvation. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM.

Then you asked if I have been born again:

Are you sure YOU'VE been born again? You've been implying that I and others are not, but you say something like this?

Jesus said, Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the the kingdom of heaven. (John 3:5). In accordance with the gospel of Christ and in obedience to the command of Christ(Makr 16:16) I have been born of water and the Spirit. Just as Titus says I have by Gods mercy I have been saved,  BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION AND RENEWAL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Titus 3:3-5. Having by the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the word of God through the Hebrew writer  our bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10:22. Therefore there is no doubt that I have been born again.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Anyone besides me notice that

1. This thread has gotten entirely too long (its about 272K now ... over 1/4 of a Meg! Connie says it took over 80 pages to print!
2. It has completely gotten off-topic, and
3. There now seems to be three, perhaps four, distinct conversations interwoven within it, to the point where it is now getting confusing to follow?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

It's now Monday here, but there are some Bible lectures going on this week that I want to go to, so even now this will have to be quick.

Things are coming in so fast and furious on this thread, that someone else may already have asked about this, but just in case .... Sis. Connie, could you give us a Scripture reference for your assertion that Paul received the Holy Spirit BEFORE his baptism. I had always thought the household of Cornelius was the only case where that happened. So I looked -- except it was just a hurried look because I need to leave in about 10 minutes. I can't find it in Acts 9, Acts 22, or Acts 26. Am I missing it in one of these, or is it somewhere else? I'm NOT trying to be sarcastic. If it's there, I want to know. But I couldn't find it myself.

Bro. Lee, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said what I did about "doing our side a disservice." I did not mean that you personally believe that PERFECT obedience is necessary for salvation. But when you put SO MUCH stress on obedience and so little on grace and faith, it comes across SOUNDING like the "works" doctrine that Paul was writing against in the opening chapters of Romans. I'd elaborate further, but I'm out of time. Could you go back and see if there is anything else you disagree with in what I said, apart from that side reference to you?

BTW, I hope no-one minds if I address people here as "Bro." and "Sis." I serve a Filipino congregation here, and they seldom address anyone without something like this attached to the name. And it is a useful reminder that really were are on basically the same side -- the side of Christ.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie:

You said:

You need to re-read that. You are putting your doctrinal spin on that. I said:

Paul was 1.) blinded on the road to Damascus

2.) received the Holy Ghost

3.) was baptized, a few days later

There is no verse in all of scripture that says that Paul recieved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. You are, I guess, associating being filled with the Spirit and the falling away of the scales from his eyes. That is not necessarily justified by the text. In fact, if the text is compared to Peter's words to the crowd in Acts 2, then the indwelling of the Spirit is shown to follow the baptism.

I believe he was a Christian from the time He said: "Who art Thou, Lord? and the Lord said, "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest."

Then you must also believe that one can be a Christian WITHOUT having one's sins washed away. Do you believe that? Paul himself relates the words of Ananias to him: "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16)

Ananias, being led by God to speak revelation to Paul, very clearly connects Paul's baptism with Paul's sins being washed away. If Paul was saved and filled with the Spirit before he was baptized, then he was saved and filled with the Spirit while he was still in his sin.

How will you deal with this scripture?

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Connie, I have no need to print out the threads. I have read them all and find no problem with the formatting. I'm on two other forums and the format of this one outdoes the other two, so I am quite capable of understanding. I don't need to print out these threads to see the obvious double standard, (yes, John I know this is off the subject, so I'm sorry.) I've seen it a million times and the song is the same. The reason we get off the subject is because of the whining about "the mean ole man was rude to me." Yes, I have children too, One grown and two others well on their way, So I've been doing this awhile too Connie. But thats who they sound like. I would have never mentioned the comment about my mother-in-law had it not been needed to show the double standard, just one of many. I also don't need to put myself in the other man's shoes as you have suggested, I can see the double standard quite clearly. Sorry, I don't buy the "I was just kidding," excuse, you could not possibly have been in all instances. Besides you aren't the only one on the forum that has this double standard. Double Standards are a pet pieve of mine and its getting in the way of the enjoyment and participation for me of debate. I've taken up enough "megs" for now.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Brother Rees:

In reference to you comment in your last post which I now quote:

Bro. Lee, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said what I did about "doing our side a disservice." I did not mean that you personally believe that PERFECT obedience is necessary for salvation. But when you put SO MUCH stress on obedience and so little on grace and faith, it comes across SOUNDING like the "works" doctrine that Paul was writing against in the opening chapters of Romans. I'd elaborate further, but I'm out of time. Could you go back and see if there is anything else you disagree with in what I said, apart from that side reference to you?

I do not disagree that we can over emphasis any Biblical truth to the neglect of other such truth. But I have not done this as you claim. We were discussing the false doctrine of FAITH ONLY. Now those who hold this doctrine put there emphasis upon faith to the neglect of obedience which proceeds from living, active, and saving faith. They neglect the truth that any faith that is ALONE is DEAD. Therefore, in opposing this doctrine it would do little good to further give emphasis to the fact that we are saved by faith other than to notice that such is true. It is necessary in this particular discussion to focus on the fact that faith without works ( Ations prompted by faith in obedience to Gods commands. As you so ably pointed out doing the decisive thing.) is DEAD being alone ( James 2:26). It is also necessary to point strongly to the fact that James tells us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ye see then how that by works ( Acts promted by a living faith and proceeding from it) a man is JUSTIFIED and NOT BY FAITH only. James 2:24.

For that reason I have made this stand. Now if you think that you can ever correct errors such as these without falsely being charged with believing in salvation by works you are sadly mistaken. You will not be able to correct this error by telling them that we are saved by faith without explaining what faith really is and how it actually leads us to obedience to Christ. And that if our faith does not lead us to obey Christ and repent of our sins and confess Christ with our mouths and be baptized it cannot and will not save us. Heb. 5;8,9. Now I understand that it is necessary to make it clear that we do not believe that we are saved by works and if you read my post you will see that I did say that we are not saved by works. I did agree that we are saved by grace through faith. But I made it clear also that we are not saved by grace through faith ALONE. For that is not the truth.

I may not have, in fact I am certain that I did not say it LOUD enough, that we are not saved by works and for that reason I had to be more emphatic in my response to brother John that we are NOT SAVED BY WORKS any more than we are saved by FAITH ONLY. We are saved by a living faith that prompts us to trust God enough to obey Him. Heb. 5:8,9.

Now, I have often said that I am not a talented writer but I do the best that I can to help others learn the truth of Gods word. If I lay more stress that you think that I should on the truth I cannot apologize for it. I can only say that you have a computer and you can write better than I do. Therefore why don't you just show us how it is done instead of criticizing how we have failed to do this job?

You could have challenged this false doctrine just as easily as I did. And I do not doubt that you would have done a better Job. The problem is that I did not see you challenge it. I therefore took it up. Now I like the way I tried better that the way you ignored the issue until you saw the way I was approaching it. Then, instead of just trying your hand at the matter, all you seemed to be interested in doing was complaining of my OVER Emphasis of the truth. I do not believe the truth can be over emphasized unless it is done to the deliberate neglect of the other truths of the scriptures. This I have not done and any fair reading of my post would bear out that fact.

Otherwise I do not disagree with anything else in your post.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Benjamin and ?

I gave the whole passage in Acts Chapter 9 on pages 101 and 102. Verse 17 gives the sequence.

John: Does the length create a problem for you? What happens? It's now 110 pages long. I think Nelta tried to start a new one because this one was becoming too long, but no one was posting to that one, so I came back here.

Guess what, Guys and Gals - - Bros and Sisters? I don't believe that we'll come to an agreement on this question. What I find offensive is the attitude that the ones who do not believe it are not Christians. I think we'd all be wise to stop an attitude like that.

Why don't we all just ask for wisdom from God and keep our spiritual eyes open for any hint that we might be wrong? That is my attitude, because I wouldn't have started this study just to prove you wrong.

But... How anyone could not believe that circumcision or baptism are physical acts, therefore works, is beyond my understanding. But, I don't know everything.

On page 104, Lee: Paragraph three in your post: 'Jesus was baptized to keep from becoming a sinner'. That cannot be. He was God. He would never become a sinner, no matter what He did. Sin is a 'falling short of the Glory of God.' Jesus HAD the Glory.

Your exegesis leaves me confused.

One thing that is good about these discussions is that it forces us to 'study to show that we are approved; workmen who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.' Now, why would we be told to do this if we couldn't understand it without any mediator but Christ? The Scriptures are 'profitable for reproof, for doctrine, for instruction in righteousness, etc...' (you all know those verses).

Peter 3:21:

My Bible says this:

'The like figure wherunto even baptism doth also now save us NOT BY PUTTING AWAY THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, BUT THE ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'

That's figurative! Here, baptism gives 'the answer of a good conscience toward God.'

Danny: The verse in Acts 22 is one I'm going to give a lot of attention to. But because it is in conflict with so many others which state we are not saved by works (any physical action) it is paradoxical, seemingly. And let's take our hermeneutics and exegesis seriously - O.K.?

John:

While I don't agree with it, because every person baptized in the N.T. was an adult, the Greek word 'en' means both 'with' and 'in', and that is where they get their interpretation. The story I always heard was that they went to sprinkling because babies were being drowned. Probably an urban legend. ;-)

How about we all start an intensive study and see what we come up with? I really liked John's post to Lee, but now I guess he doesn't agree with it.

Que Sera!

Affectionately in Christ, Brothers and Sisters, not just friends.

John:

How long can we go before evrything explodes? ;-) ;-)

Also, I believe every believer should obey God and be 'baptizo'd.' I was! It is up to the individual to decide when. If someone were to say : 'I will not be baptized', that might mean God would need to discipline him/her, like any naughty child.

Lee: Since you are a technology professional, I think you said, I'll bet you know how to cut, copy and paste. Intead of giving your interpretation of what I have said, can you just paste the words from my actual posts here? I haven't said even a little of what you say I have.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Jenny, I have apologized, and hope you'll forgive me. Everything that I have designated as humor, was. And I do not even expect any of the people who have been hateful to me to apologize.

Many of the people who have NOT been insulting have apologized for the others, so I'll accept that.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

My, my, how Satan loves to get brothers fighting with brothers.

Bro. Lee Saffold, you said,

"Now, I have often said that I am not a talented writer but I do the best that I can to help others learn the truth of Gods word. If I lay more stress that you think that I should on the truth I cannot apologize for it. I can only say that you have a computer and you can write better than I do. Therefore why don't you just show us how it is done instead of criticizing how we have failed to do this job?

"You could have challenged this false doctrine just as easily as I did. And I do not doubt that you would have done a better Job. The problem is that I did not see you challenge it. I therefore took it up. Now I like the way I tried better that the way you ignored the issue until you saw the way I was approaching it. Then, instead of just trying your hand at the matter, all you seemed to be interested in doing was complaining of my OVER Emphasis of the truth. I do not believe the truth can be over emphasized unless it is done to the deliberate neglect of the other truths of the scriptures. This I have not done and any fair reading of my post would bear out that fact."

Have you read ALL that I have said about the subject of the necessity of immersion for salvation? I haven't written much on this "thread." I started in the thread on Romans 10, and only moved over here after I discovered that most of the discussion that had been going on over there had moved over here.

You said, "The problem is that I did not see you challenge it (the false teaching that immersion is not necessary)", and "I like the way I tried better that the way you ignored the issue", and "why don't you just show us how it is done instead of criticizing how we have failed to do this job?" I don't think I have ignored the issue. The majority of what I have said (especially when you take the totality of what I have said in the two threads together) has been in challenging the "faith ONLY" doctrine and showing that immersion really is necessary. I make almost no criticism of "how [you] have failed to do this job" except for a passing reference -- one sentence only, by way of introducing the fact that many are confused about the issue since TOO strong an emphasis on obedience SOUNDS so similar to the "salvation by works" doctrine ("works" ALSO BEING CALLED "obedience" by its advocates) which Paul is combatting in Romans.

I think the main difference you and I have over this is not over doctrine but over "technique" in how to deal with those with whom we differ. I have been "debating" this issue in various situations for over 30 years. I find I am most successful when I start by emphasising points of agreement, rather than points of difference, and then patiently point out the DIFFERENCE between "obedience" to a simple one-time act of initiation into Christ -- "putting on" Christ -- and "OBEDIENCE" (PERFECT OBEDIENCE to every command there is), which Paul calls "works" and says cannot save us. "OBEDIENCE" (in every respect) is a goal to aim at, but cannot save us. But "obedience" (in submitting to immersion as the test God requires of us) does. I did not write what I did to criticise you, so I'm sorry it sounded that way. I was trying to "help", by trying to clarify the difference between the two concepts of obedience -- a difference which I'm sure you see, but I wasn't sure people were understanding it from what you were saying.

Sis. Connie, in Acts 9:17, Ananias tells Saul (Paul) why he was sent to him -- so that he could receive back his sight, and so that he could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The next verse, 18, says that he received his sight "immediately" (but immediately AFTER Ananias had spoken). No verse that I could find says WHEN he actually received the gift of the Holy Spirit, but verse 18 continues by saying that Saul's next actions were to get up and be immersed. (In chapter 22, Paul's own testimony inserts the fact that it was Ananias who told him to "rise and be immersed and wash away your sins, calling on his name.")

Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." If, as I contend, it is normally necessary to be immersed as a pre-requisite to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (with the single post-Pentecost exception of the household of Cornelius), and Ananias immersed him, wouldn't this fulfill what Ananias said about having been sent so that Paul could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Benjamin:

I don't have a lot of time, but wanted to respond to some of what you said.

You have nothing to be ashamed of in the way you present your views. You are kind, forbearing and open to instruction. (Not that I want to instruct you, but for the ones who do.) You also have a thoughtful, reasoned approach and don't 'shoot from the hip'.

I want to acknowledge that I was slightly wrong on the interpretation of Acts 9: 6 - 18, verse 17. The sequence is this: 'And Ananias [of Ananias and Saphira fame; How imperfect we all are! Even the ones involved in the beginnings of the church.< Connie's insertion] went his way, and entered into the house, and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul(Paul) the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight,and be filled with the Holy Spirit'. It seems that these two things were simultaneous, (receiving his sight and the Holy Spirit, unless you can give me a reference which states that Paul's receiving of the Holy Spirit was at another time. And then he was baptized, immediately after receiving his sight, several days after having been enlightened (by his blinding!) by Jesus. My point in citing these verses was to show that if baptism were a requirement for SALVATION (not justification (to be made defensible) nor sanctification (to be set apart for God's use); nor righteousness - (right standing with God); nor any other of the concepts put forth in the Scripture as acts of obedience, WHY DIDN'T JESUS SAY, "BE BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY!'?

Also, Paul said for believers to be baptized, but refrained from baptizing more than a few. Anything which is physically accomplished is a 'work' according to my dictionaries. Even the verses which say, 'Believe and be baptized' give the sequence as I see it.

John:

I believe that one has to do a lot of twisting and dodging to say baptism is not a 'work', no matter who performs it.

Danny and Jenny:

I believe, but I could be wrong, that you cannot get the whlole picture of what each person feels unless you print out the thread and study it.

I'm pretty much of 'quick study", and until I printed it out in the last few days and read the whole thing (and also the other threads relative to these questions), I was not able to pick up the nuances and subtleties of all which was being said.

I suppose when I kept mentioning the formatting that I should be specific. Otherwise, people who are using a reasonable form might think I am referring to them. So, while I certainly don't think it is a sin, it should be! ;-) ;-) JUST KIDDING!

Not using paragraphs or letting sentences run into each other just makes what one is saying less easy to be understood. Since I am usually in a hurry, for example, I will skip a lot of what is said in Lee's postings because I don't have the time or patience to wade through it.

But when I put all of the printings together and used different highlighters to get the 'cast of characters' straight, it all became very clear.

There is a reason paragraphs and punctuation were invented! Just ask anyone who studies ancient languages. People are still debating the meanings of various writings, where if punctuation had been used, the original meanings would be easier to discover.

If you won't accept my apologies, that is up to you. But I would re- read Jesus' words about forgiving our brothers (and sisters, since the use of the masculine noun meant men and women, both, at the time the translations were done. (Until recent years, in fact).

I do not intend to bite and devour my brethren, so while I may fail, my intention is to keep the delete button in mind to eliminate my sharp rejoinders, before sending them out into cyberspace.

Forgiving others their shortcomings, if they are repentant, is important to your emotional and mental and spititual health. For your sake, I hope you do it. I like to use a little humor, for as I've reiterated, 'A merry heart does good like a medicine.' in fact, if we have a merry heart, we will need less pharmaceutical medicine.

My feeling is that life is too short to be fighting amongst ourselves.

For one thing, time is short, and it diminishes the chances of our getting out the Gospel. Contending for our own denominations or church (not Body of Christ) is divisive, and hated by God. One of the seven things He hates!

Your truth is not my truth. Jesus' words are my truth. Get a red- letter N.T. and study His words, especially in Matthew 5, (the Beatitudes). They are what I want MY ATTITUDES to be!

In Jesus, as a result of His atoning work on the cross, not by my filthy rags of works, or obedience.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Danny and John:

You keep missing the point. You need to use a dictionary written in the first century to know what it meant in the first century, not something written 2000 years later.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

An observation: The Abrahamic covenant was, like the New Covenant, a covenant of faith. "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Yet Abraham nor any of his family did not come under the covenant, until they submitted to that which God had ordained as an entry point: circumcision.

If someone had said, "I'm sorry, I just don't believe circumcision is important," God would have said, "I'm sorry, I guess the blessings don't apply to you then.

Now certainly circumcision was not a work, at least for the one circumcised. They submitted to the procedure, and there is not work in submission. (I can scarcely imagine someone circumcizing themselves! OUCH!)

In the same way, Baptism is not a work, but an ordained entry point. The baptizer works, to be sure, but the baptizee (is that a word?) submits passively to the procedure. And the last time I looked up in the dictionary, passive acceptance of an event didn't qualify as "work." Even the ultraorthodox Jews wouldn't go that far.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

dbvz;

There is such a thing as a dictionary of first century Koine Greek. Its called a Lexicon. By your reasoning, we cannot know for sure any of the Bible's content because we did not live in the context of the first century. The entirety of scripture comes up for question.

Any Koine Greek Lexicon (look it up in a Thayers, for instance) defines baptism as immersion. End of subject. The first century Greeks understood it that way, thats why they had a specific word for it. The problem lies in people of the 21st century wanting so desperately to hold onto their long taught beliefs, wanting so desperately to belief they are not wrong, that they would even call the very scriptures into question, to escape its judgment on them.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie:

You said the following:

"Lee: Since you are a technology professional, I think you said, I'll bet you know how to cut, copy and paste. Instead of giving your interpretation of what I have said, can you just paste the words from my actual posts here? I haven't said even a little of what you say I have."

I think that everyone here will tell you that I am an "expert" on cut and paste. In fact I have often been criticized for too much "cut and paste" in this forum. The criticism came naturally from those trying to avoid the truth. Then, since you are also trying to avoid the truth you complain that I should "cut and paste". But you need to go back and notice that in every case when I argue against your words I have done Just that. I have "copied and pasted" your exact words and then responded to what I perceived those words to be saying. Anyone can read for themselves and see that I always "copy and paste" your words before responding to them just as I have done in the beginning of this post. That is my constant and consistent habit as all that read this forum can testify. I do this with every person that I respond to in this forum. To those who do not like my doing this notice that Connie is a good example of the reason it is wise to do as I have done as a habit in responding to post in this forum.

So Connie, YOU HAVE SAID EVERTHING THAT I HAVE "PASTED" IN QUOTATIONS FROM YOUR POST THAT YOU HAVE SAID. I HAVE ALWAYS PUT YOUR WORD'S IN EXACT QUOTES THAT I HAVE COPIED FROM YOUR POST AND PASTED IN MY RESPONSE.

Now you just cannot accept the fact that your doctrine is contrary to the word of God and I have made it clear that such is the case and you have not even attempted to answer much of what I have said to you. You continue to ignore Mark 16:16 and you have FAILED to show us even one single scripture that says we are saved " By grace through faith ALONE". I understand why you have not given such a passage. The reason is that such a passage does not exist for the word of God does not say any such thing. You also ignore the fact that James tells us " Ye see then how that by works (ACTS PROMTED BY FAITH AND ARISING FROM IT) a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." James 2:24. Now that is the truth. And that truth is completely in conflict with what you have been saying.

CONNIE SAYS: WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH ONLY

CHRIST THROUGH JAMES SAYS: YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY". (James 2:24).

The contrast is obvious Connie.

CONNIE SAYS: BAPTISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION.

CHRIST SAYS: "HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTISED SHALL BE SAVED: HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED." (Mark 16:16)

The fact that you are diametrically opposed to Christ is clear, Connie.

1 Peter 3:21 is not the figure Connie. It is the fact that in the days of NOAH eight souls we saved by water that is the figure Connie. Baptism is like it. The same waters that "saved" Noah destroyed the rest of the world. The difference was Noah's faith. For Noah did everything that God commanded him to do. If he had believed in "faith only" he would have said, " I know the flood is coming because I have faith in God and because I have been chosen by God I will be saved by "FAITH ONLY". Therefore if I build an ark as God commanded me to do I will be attempting to be saved by my own works of righteousness. I will not do what God commands me to do because I am already saved by "FAITH ONLY". " Now Connie, if Noah had followed your "faith only" doctrine you and I would not even be discussing this matter in this forum because he would have died with the rest of the antediluvian world and the human race would have vanished from the face of the earth. But thanks be to God that Noah's faith "WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS (Acts proceeding from faith and caused by it) and by his works was his faith made perfect. For by faith Noah built an ark to the saving of his house". Notice what the Hebrew writer by inspiration of God says. "By faith Noah, being warn of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with Godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith." (Hebrews 11:7). Now you would call that "house building salvation" instead of salvation by Faith. You would accuse Noah of trying to be saved by works. You would have pestered poor old Noah for the entire 120 years that he spent on building that ark complaining that he was trying to be saved by WORKS. But the Bible says he was saved by faith because his faith prompted him to obey God and build an ark to the saving of his house.

The same water that destroyed the rest of the human race saved Noah from the evil generation in which he lived and separated him from the punishment God wrought upon that generation. The reason that this occurred is because Noah's faith lead him to obey God when everyone else in the world could not see any good reason for him to build an ARK when they had never seen a flood before. It did not make any sense to human reason that such a large vessel would ever be needed but Noah believed God and therefore he did what God said and Noah was saved from an evil generation. The water separated him from them.

Now Peter is telling us that in the same way that those eight souls were "saved by water" in the "like figure" or upon the same principle "BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US". God has commanded us to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2: 38) and in order to be saved (Mark 16: 16). We believe God and obey him (Heb. 5:8,9) this act separates us from this evil generation in which we live because they do not see any sense in being baptized. They do not see how this water could "save us". They fail to understand that in baptism it is not water that saves us but it is our faith in Christ that saves us. In baptism God has determined to wash our sins away (Acts 22:16) and those who refuse this command of God will not be saved by faith. Peter on the day of Pentecost told his audience to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Acts 2:38. Then, "with many other words did he testify and exhort saying save yourselves from THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION." Acts 2:40.

Then we are told, " as many as RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized and there were added to them on that day 3,000 souls". (Acts 2:40). Now it is clear that they "saved themselves" from their "untoward generation" in the same way that Noah saved himself and his family from his evil generation and it was the water of the flood that separated Noah from his evil generation. And both were saved by God's grace because he could have not given them his commands nor even offered them any hope of being saved by faith or works (Acts prompted by faith in God's commands). And it is the water of baptism that separated these men from their evil generation. But in both cases it was their FAITH that produced the desire and will to obey God's commands that brought about their salvation for there was nothing in the water that saved either of these but it was their faith in God. In both cases if they had not had a living faith that prompted them to act in accordance with God's commands they would have been lost. It is by faith that we trust the words of Christ, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). It is by faith that we trust the words of Christ through Peter that repentance and baptism is for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). It is by faith that we know that our sins are washed away when we call upon the name of the Lord in baptism (Acts 22:16). This is why we say to every one, " Why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). No responsible person that does not have enough faith to repent of their sins and obey the Lord in baptism will ever be saved from their sins. For faith alone is dead. (James 2:26). No one has been and therefore none shall ever be justified by "faith only". In fact you cannot find one example in the scriptures where anyone was ever saved or justified by "FAITH ONLY".

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie: FYI, in case you're nissing it in the heat of the debate (I know I did, and thats what caused my vehement exchange of words with Lee earlier in this thread);

When Lee says we are not saved by "faith only," all he is really saying is we are not saved by a dead faith that produces no good works. (Pew-warmers, beware.) He is not saying that works in any way save us.

Thats what I thought he meant, too, but after we "had it out" earlier in this thread, he made it clear to me that we believed the same way, it was just a semantical problem we were having. He is not saying "faith plus works." He is saying "faith that produces works."

I think (or at least I HOPE) that you also can agree with that, that a dead faith that produces no fruit is not a saving faith at all ... and find that you are on the same side as Lee and I after all. (Egads!)

(Then we just have to deal with the sticky little problem of where baptism fits into all of this...)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

"nissing" above should have been "missing." Pardon my typo.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

LOL @ Danny!

the only prob I have with the length of the thread is I have a slow connection and it takes forever to download.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Yeah, Danny! RE: red-letter Bibles.

I wish they had left out those Chapters and Verses, too! ;-) ;-)

LOL LOL LOL (I can't stop laughing!)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Yes, John,

I have thought that it is merely semantics which I said someplace and misspelled 'symantics' but my fingers sometimes stumble over my brain.

Lee!

Rather than have you cut, copy, or paste my words, just let everyone print out the thread and determine for him/herself what I have said.

Your blizzard of re-interpretation not even I want to read again, and didn't, just now. I just read your opening shots.

I write specific verses as a proof, without a whole lot of interpretation, although I have done some. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DOES ALL THE INTERPRETING. Are you sure you're not Clinton's ATTORNEY? The 'spin' is unmistakeable!

LOL LOL LOL !!!!!

Also, Lee, can you tell me in 'computer babytalk' no Greek, now! how to do what you with the 'cut, copy, and paste'? Forum Regulars: I PROMISE not to 'blizzard 'you, or 'Saffold' you, as Lee does. Some gifts have to used with restraint.

Lee, I promise to read EVERY WORD if you do this for me. And by the way, I never let the sun go down on my anger! ;-) ;-) Obeying the Lord, you know!

John: I made a horrible FORMATTING error (confession time) on my new thread.

Can you tell me what I did wrong?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

News Flash

Since some would like to change the method & meaning of Baptism and others just want to get along - why don't we just use this method:

Baptism By Fire Hose

Charlotte, North Carolina - When 2000 people want to be Baptized, that's a lot of dunking, and a lot of time. Clearly, a baptism by fire hose is more efficient.

That's the plan for a ceremony scheduled for Sunday in the parking lot of the United House of Prayer for All People. The hose from a fire truck will be hooked to a hydrant and set on fine mist so no one gets hurt. Church Elders will do the spraying, with help from firefighters.

"It's not the water," said C.B. Gibson, the denomination's state chairman. "It's the belief you have in it."

The United House of Prayer for All People is holding its 72nd annual convocation, the final stop in a 12-city series of meetings that began in July. The Baptism is usually held this time of year in the pool behind the church, but the building is undergoing renovations.

(This, by the way, is an actual news article - I ain't bright enough to make up something like this.)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie:

Your words to me were:

"On page 104, Lee: Paragraph three in your post: 'Jesus was baptized to keep from becoming a sinner'. That cannot be. He was God. He would never become a sinner, no matter what He did. Sin is a 'falling short of the Glory of God.' Jesus HAD the Glory."

Now I want to make it clear that I have not said that Christ would have liked to become a sinner. I have not said that he was a sinner. I am saying that He was required to obey God just like the rest of us. " 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 to all them that OBEY HIM." (Heb. 5:8,9). Now I have said that if Christ had been like the Pharisees who "rejected the council of God against themselves by not being baptized of John" (Luke 7:30). He would have been just like them. If He had refused baptism he would have sinned against God and that is the REASON that he insisted that John the Baptist baptize him also "to fulfill all righteousness" because it would not have been RIGHTEOUS for him to neglect this important command of God. You are telling us that he could have ignored this command of God without being a sinner. You are saying that Christ would not have become a sinner "NO MATTER WHAT HE DID". Now those are your very words. So according to you, if he had bowed down and worshipped the Devil he would not have been a sinner. The scriptures make it clear Connie that if he had chosen to "worship the Devil" he would have been a sinner! But you say that he would not have been a sinner NO MATTER WHAT HE DID". Well let's look at the temptation of Christ and you tell us. If he had fallen down and worshipped the Devil, would he have been a sinner? Now I know that he did not worship the Devil when he was tempted to do so but you are saying that he would not become a sinner "NO MATTER WHAT HE DID". You had better think about that one!

Now, Connie, the fact is that Jesus Christ did not sin because he was always obedient to God. He could have sinned if he wanted to. He was "tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin." Now how could Christ be "tempted in all points like we are" if it was impossible for him to sin? Now he was perfect in his obedience and he even asked on one occasion, " which of you convicteth me of sin?" He said show me how I have ever sinned. They could not because he lived a perfect life. He lived a perfect life by his own free will and choice. He chose to obey God.

The Devil tempted Christ according to Matthew 4: 1-11. In that reference the scripture says, " Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." ( Matthew 4:1-11.

Now notice Connie, the Devil did not think that Christ could not be tempted to sin. If he had known that Christ had no choice but to obey God he would not have bothered with tempting Christ. The Holy Spirit led Christ into the wilderness so that he could be tempted. It was God's will for Christ to face temptation. So He let Christ go without food for FORTY DAYS. You cannot tell me that after going without food for forty days that Christ was not sorely tempted to eat! But he did not yield to this temptation to just use his powers as the Son of God to make food from stones at the suggestion of the devil. And if he had yielded to this temptation of the devil he would have become a sinner. But he did not. He used the same powers that you and I have to resist this temptation. He had the will to obey God in all things and not yield to the devil in anything. Now you and I are not as strong as He was but he still could have sinned if he did not use His strength of will to resist it. For the scripture says concerning Christ, our High Priest, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." (Hebrews 4:15). Now Connie, the scripture says he was tempted in ALL POINTS LIKE AS WE ARE. Now Connie, it is not possible for him to have been tempted just "like we are" unless it was possible for him to actually have the same human choice that we have to obey God or disobey God.

Now you say that sin is falling short of the glory of God. It is indeed and it is also "transgression of the law of God. "Sin is the transgression of the Law". (1John3: 4). Now it was God's will that John the Baptist should baptize all of the people in preparation for Christ. The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves by not being baptized of John. (Luke 7:30). If Jesus had refused to be baptized he would have been just as guilty of rejecting God's counsel as were the Pharisees which would have made Him a sinner just like they were sinners because they had reject God's council to be baptized of John. This is the reason that Christ said; " It behooveth us to fulfill all righteousness." If Christ had not been baptized of John he would not have fulfilled all righteousness. Which would have made Him UNRIGHTEOUS. Now we know that Christ was filled with ALL righteousness because He obeyed God's every command including the command to be baptized. If he had not done so he would have been an unrighteous sinner and therefore would have been an unacceptable sacrifice for sin. It was Christ the SINLESS one who died in the place of all of us sinners. So the baptism of Christ itself was for our benefit. He was baptized to maintain his righteousness and to not sin so that he could be the spotless sacrifice for our sins. We are then joined with Christ in our baptism. If Christ had not been baptized we could not be baptized WITH HIM (Romans 6:3-5). He was baptized as our perfect example of obedience.

Remember Connie that the one argument that you cannot make against baptism is that Christ was not baptized. Christ therefore was baptized for our salvation in that if he had refused baptism he would have disobeyed God and could not have been a sinless sacrifice for us. So your absurd argument that we do not have to be baptized because Christ was baptized does not make sense. EVEN the Son of God was required by God to be baptized and you think that others are allowed to just neglect it? No one in the New Testament was baptized to "join any Church". It is never treated as just a ceremony or a sign. The Bible nowhere says, "baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace". In fact if it were an outward sign of an inward Grace was it such for Christ as well? Was it an outward sign of an "inward grace" for Christ? He did not "need God's Grace" therefore he did not experience what the Calvinist and some others call an "inward grace". He was the grace of God to us. But he did not need to display any outward sign of an inward grace! So baptism cannot be merely an outward sign of an inward grace as the Calvinists talk about for Christ did not experience any such "inward grace" described by those who believe in such things and neither has any one else for that matter. Men say that about baptism but Jesus said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:16.

Therefore Connie if we follow Christ in all that he did and taught we will be baptized to obey God and for the remission of our sins which we do have and Christ did not. Because Christ was the Son of God and thus had no sins did not excuse him from baptism which is for the remission of sins simply because it was also a command of God to be obeyed by everyone. No one but Christ can be baptized JUST TO OBEY GOD. For only Christ was sinless. The rest of us must be baptized in obedience to God for the remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). For this very reason, when the Eunuch heard Phillip preach JESUS, at that is all we know of what Phillip preached to him. All we are told is that Phillip preached JESUS and nothing else. When he hear Phillip preach Jesus as soon as they came to water the very FIRST THING HE ASKED was "SEE HERE IS WATER WHAT DOETH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?". It should be obvious to any thinking person that one who preaches Jesus in the same way that Phillip preached Jesus must talk about being baptized in water! This was a vital part of preaching Jesus in the New Testament. Those who neglect it are not preaching the same gospel that Phillip preached. You could listen to some preachers today for years and never hear a word about baptism unless they have run into a Christian that is preaching like Phillip did and baptizing people in the same way that Phillip baptized the Eunuch. Then you will hear a sermon from these preachers CONDEMNING the man who preaches Jesus in the same way that Phillip did by accusing them of believing that were are "saved by works" and of being "water Logged" etc. This is the reason that your insults do not bother me Connie. For I have been preaching like Phillip ever since I became a Christian and I have been called every name in the book and some that would never be found in the book. But the fact remains that when Phillip preached Jesus, and that is all the bible says that he preached, the very FIRST thought that was expressed out of the Eunuch's mouth was "see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized." He did not want to wait. He saw this matter as very important and he drew his conclusions about baptism from hearing Phillip preach JESUS. If he had heard a Calvinist preach, instead of a Christian like Phillip, he would have spent the rest of his life waiting on some "experience of Grace" to confirm that he was one of "God's elect". He could have driven his Chariot into the water and it would have never crossed his mind that he could experience God's grace in simple faithful obedience to God's command to be baptized into Christ (Gal. 3; 26,27). A Calvinist would never tell him to be "buried with Christ in Baptism and be raised to walk in newness of life in order to have his sin washed away. (Acts 8:25-40; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-6; Mark 16:16; Gal' 3; 26,27; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Col. 2:11,12; Eph. 5:26; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21). But "thanks be to God" that he heard the gospel from a Christian instead of a perverted version of it from a Calvinist.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie:

You said:

"I write specific verses as a proof, without a whole lot of interpretation, although I have done some. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DOES ALL THEINTERPRETING. Are you sure you're not Clinton's ATTORNEY? The 'spin' is unmistakable!"

You have as much room to interpret as I have in this forum, Connie. No one has restricted your amount of space or limited the number of words you can use. Now I cannot help it if you are too lazy to stay up late and do the work. That is your problem, not mine. I do not really care how much of my writing you read or respond to but I will do my best to teach the truth with my limited talents as a writer. Others could do and are doing a better job but I am responsible to the Lord for what I do. So if you think I am doing "all the interpreting" then you stay up late at night and get up early in the morning and take some of your lunch time during the day to do some of the interpreting. If you are unwilling to do that then blame yourself for no one, least of all me, is preventing you from saying as much as you would like to say.

Now I do not know if you intended to "lovingly" insult me with your suggestion that I might be Clinton's attorney or to be down right harsh in your insult. But it does not matter, I can tell you that I am too dedicated to the truth to be "Clinton's attorney" and I an too lacking in intellectual and writing skills to develop very much "spin" as you call it. But I do hope that you can notice that it is easier for you to hurl these insults at me than it is for you to just answer my arguments. In fact, if you could find a verse that says, "we are saved by grace through faith ALONE" it would be easier for you to write than this insult. But since you cannot find such a verse, and we have asked you over and over to produce one, it is easier for you to imagine that I am an "attorney". It is hard for me to conceive of what would make you think I am an attorney at all much less one as skillful at deliberate lies as Mr. Clinton's attorneys.

Is it because you do not have the courage to just call me a deliberate liar? For you know that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A CHARGE. So you do it this way so that when others accuse YOU of being "unloving" in leveling such a false charge against me you will be able to say, " Oh, I was just kidding LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL". I think that in this case the "LOL" means, (in what my Chinese wife calls "Chinglish") "LAUGH OFF LIE". Your false doctrine cannot be supported and you have failed to support it with scripture so you have nothing else to resort to but personal attack and innuendo. But that is fine Connie. But do not come back and complain when you are "harshly rebuked" for your false teaching concerning the scriptures. Because that is the right thing to do. Christians in the New Testament did it all the time. If you ever prove that I am in error on anything you can be as harsh as you like. You can even call me a "liar" so long as you give me proof that I am a liar. For if you ever do that I will repent of any such lie that I know I have told. But to accuse me falsely of being a liar and that in a sneaky, cowardly way so that you can always say, "I was just kidding". Look up the word "jesting" in your Bible and find out what God says about this behavior. It is in a list along with adultery and fornication etc. But show me where any Christian in the New Testament ever resorted to such innuendo. Now can you prove what you assert? Can you prove from the scriptures that I am deliberately lying by putting a deliberate spin on the scriptures to make it say something that it does not say? You are the one doing that Connie. You have said that the scriptures teach that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE " That is your way of spinning the scripture to make it say what you want it to say. The word "ALONE" is your addition to what God says. It is not what God said at all. What God said was "By grace are ye saved through faith". (Eph. 2:8,9). The word ALONE is not in that passage, now is it Connie? You put it there in order to "spin" that scripture to make it appear to mean what you would like to have it mean. Now didn't you? It is not really there is it? So who is the "spin master"? The people reading this forum can determine easily enough.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold, Esq.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

E. Lee Saffold, ESQUIRE?!

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Lee, a lawyer? (Must be a sea-lawyer!) ;-D

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

John:

John:

E. Lee Saffold, ESQUIRE.

It has a nice ring doesn't it? If it were not so rediculous! Ha! I believe Nate has the right idea. "Sea-Lawyer"! Ha! You see Nate, I have always said you were TALENTED! But Clinton's Lawyer? Now that was just plain stupid, wasn't it?!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

It has been said that he who would defend himself in court has a fool for a client. I think the same could be said of Clinton's lawyer. haha!

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Lee:

I asked you before to give me the thread and the page where I said that we are 'Saved by grace ALONE'. I don't believe I said that, but being human, I could have. 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man/woman should boast.'

If you can show me where I said those words as a quote of what the Scriptures say, I WILL APOLOGISE. When are you going to apologise to me for your rudeness?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Wow, Lee!

You wouldn't get a statement like that from ol' Nelta!

Is it a time for graciousness?

Shalom,

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Lee:

You have been attacking me with your rhetoric since I showed up here. I know that 'all things work together for good to those who love God', and I do, but I'm trying to discover what could be good about sticking around here and absorbong your abuse.

Perhaps it is because it has prodded me to search the Scriptures, as I have in the past, but have neglected recently.

I did not call you a liar, but you have made false accusations about what I have said, repeatedly in this forum.

Matthew 5: 10-12 (The Beatitudes)

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all manner of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, because great is your reward in Heaven, for in the same way they perscuted the prophets which were before you."

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID 'BY GRACE YOU ARE SAVED ALONE'.(As a quotation). I don't believe I said it, but I may have. If you can show where I said it - - on which thread, and on which page is it? IF I SAID IT, AND THEN SAID I DIDN'T SAY IT, I - WILL - APOLOGIZE!!!

Are there any 'peacemakers' in the crowd? Blessed are you!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Lee:

I wondered what you meant when you thought my asking if you were sure you were not Clinton's lawyer meant I was calling you a liar. That was not my intent at all. It was because of your argumentive powers, which Clinton's lawyers have in abundance.

This is one example of why people get in arguments: misunderstandings. I think you look for the letter of the law, whereas the spirit of the law appeals more to me. (And I am saying that with no animosity.)

We need to perhaps quit posting to each other for awhile, because neither is being edified. I am not going to leave for awhile, as Nelta has again. I sympathize with her. I know that I wouldn't like to be savaged as she has been, supposedly by her Christian brothers.

But I feel I can take it. God has given me a spirit of peace. Even with my capitalization, I wasn't really angry. I have asked you at least a couple of times to show me the thead and the page, but you may be having my problem: you can't see a snowflake for the blizzard (of words).

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

I find it laughable that you consider me a Calvinist. Baptists and Calvinists are virtual opposites. I really didn't want my son to attend Calvin College, but because I believe in free will (the personal kind as well as the spiritual kind) I didn't discourage him.

I'm not really a Baptist, though, either. I'm a Christian. Period. Not of the 'Restoration Movement' denomination either. You could further your education by reading what John Calvin said. I did study what he and Arminius thought to find out what each believed and whether I agreed with either. I agreed with some of what they said, but not all. In one thread, I said that I'd rather choose John Calvin than Calvin of the underwear, as a previous poster had said he would. Calvin believed in infant baptism; I don't (but I don't condemn him because he did.) Also, I consider Calvinists to be legalistic, the way you are. We are under grace and Christ has provided us freedom. Not freedom to sin, of course.

In fact, your beliefs, from what I can gather are quite similar to Calvin's except they baptize babies, and I don't know if you believe in some variation of 'perseverence of the saints' or 'Eternal Security.'

I've been immersed TWICE: once before I was a believer and once after becoming a believer. I have stated that repeatedly, without its sinking in your brain. The problem here is that you think that because I don't subscribe to your philosophy - which is what it is - that I am not a Christian.

What you portray is certainly not Scriptural Christianity and I don't mean the insistence on baptism; Is that not it? Say it: you don't believe that people who don't believe the way you do are Christians, do you? You're going to be behind that big brick fence in Heaven and think you're the only ones up there.

I will explain why I say the above. It is because of the unloving and unChristlike behavior you exhibit. The reality is that you have not repented of your sin. Anyone who really believed he is a sinner would be much more humble than you are.

I myself cried every time I heard the Gospel for about 5 or 6 years after I became a Christian, because I was so thankful to Jesus for dying for me. You sound sad and unhappy to me, Lee. Where is your joy, and peace, and merry heart?

I am truly sorry if I have hurt you, but you seem to have a very tough, carefully constructed defense against truly interacting with people on a loving, kind, forbearing level.

Jesus can give you the peace that passes all understanding, but not if you hide in that fortress you have built around your heart. the New Testament writers were not afraid to talk about love; they did it frequently.

Hope this didn't post twice.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

I'm afraid this may be another posting that will bring me more criticism from "my own side" than from the other, so let me say up front that I firmly believe that "baptise" means "immerse", and that the Bible teaches it is a pre-requisite for *receiving* the forgiveness of sins and salvation that Christ has already paid for.

But I also dislike error and misunderstandings on both sides. (Not that I claim to be free from all error myself -- but I think we should all be prepared to correct error when we see it, though always in the spirit of love and humility.) It is also a problem when several are arguing a case and one or several make mistakes that lay "our side" more open to attack from the "other side." BTW, I think everyone in this forum is on "Christ's side", but we are on opposing sides of certain doctrinal issues.

I'm afraid I will sound like a traitor to my own side in bringing this up, but if I don't, someone else surely will. John Wilson, you said:

'The Abrahamic covenant was, like the New Covenant, a covenant of faith. "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Yet Abraham nor any of his family did not come under the covenant, until they submitted to that which God had ordained as an entry point: circumcision.'

That's a great argument. Unfortunately for "our side", Romans 4:6-12 says that Abraham's faith was "credited to him for righteousness" BEFORE he was circumcised! A better example would be Abraham leaving Ur or sacrificing Isaac. Compare Hebrews 11 and James 2.

Changing the subject -- I think I'd better drop the use of "Bro." and "Sis." and go back to the "good ol' American way" of just addressing people by their first names alone.

Danny apparently thinks I should not be calling Connie "sister". I don't feel I have the authority to decide that she isn't. I believe in Jesus Christ; she believes in Jesus Christ. I have been immersed in obedience to the commands in the Bible; if I have understood what she has said, she also has been immersed, also in obedience to the commands of Scripture. The only substantial difference between us is her opinion that she was already saved before she was immersed, while I believe that I was saved at the point of my immersion. (And since God sees time differently than we do, the question may be irrelevant anyway.) How much does it matter what OUR understanding is of what exactly is accomplished by our immersion? How much of the Bible teachings about immersion is it necessary for us to understand? The Gnostics taught that we were saved by our knowledge. I don't. One article I read recently (written by a Church of Christ writer, incidentally) asked a very pertinent question. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist was something like this: Is "for the remission of sins" part of the command, or part of the promise?

As for being a false teacher, I see her, in this forum, defending her opinion about the timing of when she was saved. IF she was teaching people they should not be immersed, then I would have reason to call her a false teacher, but I haven't gotten the impression that she does anything of the sort.

However, rather than create yet another point of conflict, I think I will go back to names only. Then I don't have to judge whether a person really is a brother or sister in Christ or not, and won't have others judging me on the choice I've made.

Connie, you said, "And Ananias [of Ananias and Saphira fame; How imperfect we all are! Even the ones involved in the beginnings of the church.< Connie's insertion] went his way, and entered into the house ....." This is a side issue and quite trivial, but I don't think this was the same Ananias. First, the book of Acts seems to be written pretty much in chronological order, and this is in chapter 9, while the Ananias of Ananias and Sapphira died in chapter 5. Secondly, confirming that this at least is in chronological order, Saul's conversion took place after the persecution that he led against the church AFTER the death of Stephen, one of "The Seven" who were chosen to manage the distribution of aid, in response to a problem which seems to have come up AFTER the incident with Ananias and Sapphira.

Like I said, that's trivial. The next point is a little less so. Unfortunately, all of us bring some pre-conceived ideas to our Bible study, and they affect our understanding. Therefore, it is important for all of us to be open to listening to other people's points of view, and examining evidence all over again to see if it is possible that their interpretation of a given passage MIGHT be the right one and our own an incorrect one based on pre-conceived ideas.

You challenge me, "It seems that these two things were simultaneous, (receiving his sight and the Holy Spirit, unless you can give me a reference which states that Paul's receiving of the Holy Spirit was at another time." I could challenge you similarly -- in view of the fact that Acts 2:38 indicates that repentance and immersion are pre-requisites for receiving remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (and the fact that Paul himself indicates that he was told that his sins would be "washed away" when he was immersed, Acts 22:16), I will assume that he received the Holly Spirit when he was baptised, UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME A REFERENCE that states clearly that this was NOT the case. Further evidence that there is a connection between immersion and receiving the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 19 where Paul asks a group of believers if they have received the Holy Spirit. When they profess ignorance about the subject, his next question is about their immersion! Perhaps the best thing would be for us both to agree that the Acts 9 passage BY ITSELF does not give enough evidence to say WHEN he received the Holy Spirit. To establish that, we need to look at other passages, and I think in this case I have more evidence on my side.

You also say, "Paul said for believers to be baptized, but refrained from baptizing more than a few." Others have already explained what Paul's "point" was in saying this, but you keep bringing it up. Perhaps I can give a different perspective on this. Paul was a "foreign missionary" and a church planter. He started churches, then as quickly as possible turned them over to other people, with the aim of ultimately leaving them in the hands of "the locals." My work is similar, except that circumstances have required that I stay with the present church for a longer period than Paul ever did. I have immersed a lot of people, yet I would be much happier if I could say, with Paul, that I've only immersed two or three. And in my case it isn't because of any worry that people would form a party around having been immersed by me! I believe that immersion is necessary for salvation. But I also believe that this is something that the local Christians should be doing themselves. I am TRYING to get them to do it! The problem is that most of our congregation are women, and some of them feel that only a man can immerse or even that only an ordained minister can immerse. So I end up doing most of it, but not by my own choice. And you also said, "'Believe and be baptized' give the sequence as I see it." I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? I agree that this is the proper order. But I contend that belief (which even the demons have) does not become "saving faith" until one takes the step of submitting to immersion.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

I now quote your words to me in this thread and this time and from henceforth when I deal with you I will give the exact date and the thread where you said the things that I have quoted you as saying. But let us begin with your words in your last post. In that post you said the following:

"SHOW ME WHERE I SAID 'BY GRACE YOU ARE SAVED ALONE'.(As a quotation). I don't believe I said it, but I may have. If you can show where I said it - - on which thread, and on which page is it? IF I SAID IT, AND THEN SAID I DIDN'T SAY IT, I - WILL - APOLOGIZE!!!" Connie (hive@gte.net), March 14, 2000.

Now the exact words that you have said was that, "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE". I responded to your post in which you said those words. Now I notice that you are asking me where you said we are saved by "grace alone". You cannot find any place where I accused you of saying that we are saved by grace alone. For that is not what you said and it is not what I accused you of saying. You said, "salvation is by grace through faith alone" and that is exactly what I have been showing you to be false doctrine. Now I want to point out that in every post I have contradicted your claim that salvation is by grace through faith ALONE". I have said it so many times now that I am sure the entire forum is tired of hearing it. Now you have never said and I have never accused you of saying that we are saved by "grace alone". You have said and I have clearly and correctly accused and quoted you as saying that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE". I quoted your exact words in the post in which I responded to you. You said that "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE" and that is the exact words that I have accused you of saying and I have quoted you as saying and that I have proven from the scriptures to be completely false. I have challenged you time and time again to give us just one passage that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" but you have failed to show us even one!

Then on the 13th of march in this same thread you had already said it once but I want to quote it for you. You said:

"I asked you before to give me the thread and the page where I said that we are 'Saved by grace ALONE'. I don't believe I said that, but being human, I could have. 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man/woman should boast.'

If you can show me where I said those words as a quote of what the Scriptures say, I WILL APOLOGISE. When are you going to apologise to me for your rudeness?"

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 13, 2000.

Now all you have to do, Connie, is scroll up in this same thread to March 09, 2000 and you will find these words written by you:

"I have stated that there are paradoxes which NO ONE can explain. But when there are many verses which plainly state that salvation is by grace, through faith alone, plain statements from the Lord, we humans have to be the ones who are lacking in the understanding, if other verses seem inconsistent."

Connie (hive@gte.net), March 09, 2000.

Now Connie, in this post dated March 09, 2000, you said that there are "many verses which plainly teach that salvation is by grace through FAITH ALONE". Now those are your words Connie, not mine. All you need to do is scroll up to that date and read your own words for yourself. Now everyone can see that you have said these words. Therefore I have not misrepresented you in this matter at all, now have I? One thing however that we do not find is you quoting a single passage of scripture that says, "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE" as you have claimed. You claimed that there were many such passages but you have completely failed to give us even one. Now you tried to avoid responsibility for saying these words. Is that because you have realized that your statement is wrong and not in harmony with the scriptures as I have clearly demonstrated and you would like to change your thinking on this matter? That is what I would rather see than an apology. I would rather see you either show us one single verse that says "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE" as you have claimed or admit that such is not the truth and accept the true teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ that salvation is by grace through faith. (Eph2:8,9).

Now, as far as me apologizing for being rude to you I only have a few words to say. It would be wrong of me to apologize for something that I have not done. Now Connie, I ask you to quote the place and give the specific details of words that I have said to you that were rude. Now I am not talking about strong words of deserved rebuke. I mean words where it was obviously my intent to do nothing more than treat you rudely. If you find such words I will be more than happy to apologize for such would be a sin against our Lord Jesus Christ not to mention a sin against you. If you show specifics, instead of unproven assertions, that I have done such I will be eager and quick to apologize.

But we have proven beyond all doubt now that you said that there are "many verses which state that salvation is by grace through faith alone", now haven't we! Don't you think that it is time to change your belief on this matter since you cannot show one single passage in the entire word of God that says any such thing? I do!

You have said it Connie and now you claim that you did not say it. Now the rest is up to you.

I do pray fervently for you Connie.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

You said these words:

"We need to perhaps quit posting to each other for awhile, because neither is being edified. I am not going to leave for awhile, as Nelta has again. I sympathize with her. I know that I wouldn't like to be savaged as she has been, supposedly by her Christian brothers."

Connie (hive@gte.net), March 14, 2000.

Now Connie, you sympathize with someone who has deliberately falsely accused her Brother in Christ more than once in this forum. I have proven without any shadow of doubt that she was guilty of these things and you were not here when that happened and therefore do not have any information concerning the facts. But you sympathize without knowing what she has done. Now, if you had been here when she falsely accused her brother you would have been appalled. I have done my best to consistently over several months to hold her accountable for her publicly sinful and evil behavior and words. I say this without even mentioning the false doctrine that she has taught in this forum, which I do not believe that even you would agree with. We are not just talking here about someone who simply hold's a different view that many of the rest of us. We are talking about deliberate lies intended to slander and harm a brother in Christ. Now I have argued with her often about her false teaching and would continue to do so. I do not expect anyone to change their thinking about any subject until they are convinced of the truth. But I do not accept deliberate lies that everyone even remotely associated with Christianity knows is a pure form of evil coming straight from the pits of hell itself! With Nelta this is what we have been fighting.

Now I understand that it appears to you that she is merely being "persecuted" for holding a different view from the rest of us. But nothing could be further from the truth. I can assure you that there are very good and scriptural reasons for these strong rebukes against Nelta in this forum. You do not understand them because you are completely uninformed of the facts. She has not been "savaged" as you falsely claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Your constant habit of making assertions without taking the time to offer proof is an extremely poor and very ineffective way to level accusations or establishing the truth. You just do not know what you are talking about in this matter, Connie.

Now you have not been rebuked with the strength and force that Nelta has been because you have not DELIBERATELY LIED to anyone in this forum. But Nelta has deliberately lied often in this forum and those lies we designed to harm her own Brother in Christ. I have called upon her to repent because I do not want her to lose her soul. Now you can think whatever you like about these things but it is wise to know all of the facts before forming a judgement about any matter. Now I am not trying to get you to agree with anything concerning Nelta. I am only trying to tell you that you should not be involved in a matter and making judgements concerning it until you have sufficient facts to make those judgements. In the case of Nelta, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN AROUND THIS FORUM LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THOSE FACTS.

Now I am merely informing you that there are things about this that you do not know. I have not given you any evidence to prove that it is true and I do not expect you to believe what I have said about these things Nelta has done. I have proven them conclusively to all who were around when these things were said in this forum. I therefore do not expect you to agree with us against sister Nelta. But niether do I expect you to take up her defense without knowing the facts. I will not present any of those facts to you because it is too much and this is a matter between Sister Nelta and her Brothers in Christ who she falsely accuse of "having something against women in this forum" among other things as well. It is not a matter for you because you did not witness the things we are talking about. Now if you wich to take up her defense I suggest that you go through the archives and gather the facts for yourself and make sure that you have them straight.

As far as our posting to each other is concerned, I will simply say that I will post anytime that I have something to say either in the defense or furtherance of the gospel of Christ and the truth of God's word. If that takes me in the direction of responding to you then I will do so. Now whether you respond to me in return is a matter for you to decide.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

You said the following:

"You have been attacking me with your rhetoric since I showed up here. I know that 'all things work together for good to those who love God', and I do, but I'm trying to discover what could be good about sticking around here and absorbong your abuse."

Now Connie, everyone in this forum knows that I do not attack any person. I attack their doctrine if it is contrary to the "doctrine of Christ". The Beloved apostle John told us plainly, "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God: He that abideth in the teaching hath both the father and the son. If any cometh to you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house and give him no greeting. For he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works." Therefore when I see that which is contrary to the truth I attack it as vigorously as I know how. But the person I do my best to never assault. Now Connie, I do not believe you can show any place in this forum where I have personally attacked you. Now, I know that it is very common for people to mistake an attack on their teaching and their long held and cherished beliefs as a personal attack upon themselves. But if that were true Connie, no one could ever correct any error for fear of being accused of attacking someone personally.

Now you mistakenly say that I have attacked you and you fail to even recognize the weapon that I am using. For I have not attacked your teaching with mere "rhetoric" as you claim. You have taught that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE". And I attacked that doctrine with a plain verse from the scripture which says, "ye see then how that by works (actions prompted by faith and produced by it) a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." (James 2:24). Now Connie you can see that I have not attacked you at all and secondly you can see that the weapon that I have used was not rhetoric but the very word of God, which is the "sword of the spirit". (Eph. 6:17).

Then you falsely accuse me, though I do not believe you deliberately intend to lie, of ABUSING YOU? I have done no such thing and you do not offer any evidence to prove that I have done such a thing. In all of my time on this forum I have never done such and I never will. So please tell me what words I have used against YOU personally at all much less any words that can be construed as being ABUSIVE toward you.

Now that I have vigorously attacked your teaching I do not deny. And that I have constantly called upon you to prove the things that you assert I do not deny; but, this charge of personally abusing you is patently false, Connie. It is an incessant assault upon your teaching, which I have shown to be contrary to the doctrine of Christ.

SO please, Connie, unless you can prove that I have in any way personally ABUSED you do not try to live a deliberate false impression that I am guilty of such a thing. Please show me where I have personally attack you with anything I have said. If I have done such I will immediately apologize and correct my path but your doctrine I will continue to assault for it is not the truth.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

"I wondered what you meant when you thought my asking if you were sure you were not Clinton's lawyer meant I was calling you a liar. That was not my intent at all. It was because of your argumentive powers, which Clinton's lawyers have in abundance."

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 14, 2000.

Now just here, Connie, you try to graciously avoid my charge that you were, at least implying that I am a liar when you "wondered" publicly in this forum if I was "Clinton's attorney" when you said the following:

""I write specific verses as a proof, without a whole lot of interpretation, although I have done some. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DOES ALL THEINTERPRETING. Are you sure you're not Clinton's ATTORNEY? The 'spin' is unmistakable!"

Now Connie it does not take any imagination at all to see the obvious and intended slight in these words does it? You asked if I am sure that I am not Clinton's Attorney. Now Connie you knew in advance that I was not Clinton's Attorney for I had previously told you that I worked in the telecommunications business. Furthermore you are clearly aware that our "President", Mr. Clinton is known all over the world for one particular thing and one thing primarily over all others. He is known to be a very accomplished and consummate LIAR. Now we all know that to be the truth! His lawyers, though we are not all familiar with their names, are known for that "art", otherwise among decent people known as LYING, but has been euphemistically designated by the word "spin". This word "spin" was used constantly when Mr. Clinton was caught in his blatant lies to make him appear to be "not such a bad guy after all" in the eyes of the majority of Americans. But all Christians know, and you are no exception Connie, that "spin" is a method used by politicians and Lawyers to LIE to the people.

Therefore, by associating me with the most famous LIAR in our nation and the most talented Lawyers in the use of the art of "spin" which we all know means to deliberately make things appear better than they truly are - otherwise known as LYING. By doing this you have therefore without doubt intended to at least IMPLY that I am a talented LIAR like Mr. Clinton's lawyers. Now you claim that such was not your intent. Now Connie, your intent in the use of those words was quite obvious and you did not expect to be called to task for them, did you?

Now that is without doubt an example of a PERSONAL attack, isn't it Connie? Therefore you have attacked me personally and I might add abusively. Now do not get me wrong. I do not complain for I am used to it. It does not really hurt me at all but you should at least be consistent and allow others to be personally abusive as well instead of pretending to be "dripping with honey and sugar", and loving everyone too much to speak harshly to your "brothers" as you pretend to do. You actually have done nothing but complain that others in this forum have been so "abusive" to you. I have not seen anyone deliberately call you a liar, as you have done to me with your "Clinton Lawyer" comment- Absolutely no one. Now I do not want or need an apology. I have already forgiven you of such for I know that you are filled with the "spirit of the age" that says we cannot criticize anyone except those who are critical of others! It is the old problem of "intolerance" of "intolerance"! It would be better if we were honest. If I believe your doctrine is contrary to the word of God I should openly attack it and have no concern about your feelings personally. And you should do the same. But do not pretend to be "superior in love" by "sweetly" calling someone a LIAR when that person is not, in fact a liar and then condemn others for sharply rebuking others by calling them liars after have established with irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, liars. Such behavior as this is extremely hypocritical, Connie. I only mention this to demonstrate your obvious inconsistency in these things.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Benjamin:

Now this is a person who really knows his 'exegesis'. By the way, can you tell me the exact difference between 'hermeneutics' and 'exegesis'? I could ask my son, but he's on his way to Italy today, and I may not hear from him for awhile.

Also, did you get my e-mail on his explanation of 'ekklesia' and 'basileia'? Do you take from that that there was only an 'assembly' of believers (as my Plymouth Brethren friends believe) and is the word 'basileia' ever used' - or was there NEVER a church building described in the N.T.?

But I digress!

Thank you for the correction on Ananias. I have no formal training in studying the Scriptures (as I'm sure you are aware) but those first three years of intensive study gave me a general overview of what the Lord wants from me.

A blessing of that study, however, is that I really had no pre- conceived bias and as you could tell, I don't know what some Christians debate among themselves, such as a pre-Trib, mid-Trib, or post-Trib and pre-, a-, or post- millennial return of Christ.

I know what the dictionary definitions are, but I don't think that those words actually appear in Scripture, as 'rapture' does not, or even 'Trinity' but the concept is there. But I could be wrong, as I'm sure my friends here will be glad to quickly and vociferously point out. ;-) ;) HUMOR ALERT!!

What I wanted to know, and never got answered, is what all of you think those terms mean. I tried to find out from Philip Watkinson, but I think he left in disgust. My e-mails to him keep popping back.

Benjamin, I think that we will just have to disagree on the necessity of baptism for salvation. Of course, I will change my mind if the Holy Spirit so enlightens me.

Also, I want to address the 'when' of receiving the Holy Spirit. But I must preface that with the statement that I really don't care. It has nothing to do with my salvation.

At the bottom of page 132, you say: '...Paul asks a group of BELIEVERS if they have received the Holy Spirit. When they profess ignorance about the subject, his next question is about their immersion!'

The reason I keep bringing up the reference to Paul's not baptizing many, is because if it were necessary for SALVATION, I believe (my opinion) that it is the thing that Paul would emphasize THE MOST; but it is not. His main emphasis is the grace in faith which we have as a gift of God, not of works.

I have stated that there are many facets of belief in Christ. But when we get down to absolute necessities, all I can see from MANY SCRIPTURES is grace through faith.

I find it rather strange that anyone would think that baptism is not a work, no matter who performs it. A physical action, which baptism most certainly is, is by definition, a work. It's like the transliteration, almost, of 'baptism'; 'baptizo' means 'to dip or to dye' meaning to be completely immersed in water.

For our baby-baptizing brethren - and I DO believe they are brethren if they confess Christ and are 'born-again' ('saved'), however, it must be said that THE GREEK WORD 'en' has two meanings: 'with' and 'in'.

Something interesting, which in the flurry of discussion this week I have forgotten to mention: Sunday in my second Sunday class - I go to two; the 'Tech.in Proph.' class and another one - a youngish (45 or so, I would say) man who was born into a Roman Catholic family and is quite well versed in their beliefs and understands both Latin and Greek, when I mentioned something about the Internet on another subject and asked him if he had ever heard of the Restoration Movement, looked incredulous. (That was too long a sentence, but I don't want to reconstruct it.)

Anyway, he said that after he became a Christian he was baptized in a CoC. At that point, can you imagine who was incredulous? Anyway, I told him about your site but forgot to get his e-mail #. But I am embarrassed to have him come here now, because of the way the conversations have gone.

As for the 'Sis' and 'Bro' discussion: I have noticed that Lee pointedly signs off as 'Friend' (meaning himself) to someone he disagrees with, and 'Brother' to someone he agrees with. And I also know there is a verse which I can't remember, which says something about calling others 'friends'. I think it was Paul.

But while the Apostles sometimes referred to each other as 'Brother', for the most part they simply called each other by name. And it is informative that Danny would suggest that you should not call me 'sister'.

It just proves that after all of my truthful witness about my faith in Christ, he still does not believe that I am a Christian. And while I believe we should contend for the faith, I believe we are to do it in a spirit of love.

In fact, on the 'PreMillennial' thread, someone called me satanic or something, and I had forgotten that until I re-accessed it yesterday. Talk about 'Forgetting those things which are past'! 'Brethren, these things ought not to be so'!

Benjamin: Also, on page 132 at the top, you mention our differing belief on the 'when' of receiving the Holy Spirit and say that since God views time differently than we do, the question may be irrelevant any way. I think that is tremendously insightful and agree with it. It may be irrelevant.

I don't mind discussing it. but I really don't like argument. I am capable of it, however, when 'contending for the faith once delivered'.

Lee:

I can see that I really don't owe you an apology, because on page 134, 2/3 of the way down is my exact posting. I have not enclosed that statement in quotations! And I will leave it to Benjamin and John and any of the other reasonable people on this board to reiterate my position, whether they agree with it or not.

As for interpretation, I will leave SOME of that to the people who are better trained in 'exegesis' and 'hermeneutics' than I am. (John and Benjamin - and others whom I can't remember, perhaps Sam.)

I agree COMPLETELY with John's large print statement of a few days ago (March 11) on page 80. When I say I do not interpret much, that is because I presume (oops! - air-sickness!) that the reader can get enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, as I do.

That is why my favorite STUDY Bible years ago was the Amplified. It gives every possible translation of words, and leaves it to the Holy Spirit to enlighten the reader. That is a function which is in the Holy Spirit's job description. (I've forgotten the reference and I have to get going.)

I try to never let the sun go down on my anger, 'cause at my age I can't afford the damage done by anger. I also want to be obedient.

Before I forget: Lee:

I get by on about 5 to 7 hours of sleep in 24. If that schedule is disturbed, I can feel rested after 2 hours of deep sleep. I subscribe to the model of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31.

My 'candle' doesn't burn all night, but pretty much so. I am NOT claiming to be virtuous, though. That is for my Savior to determine.

I'm really starting to feel a real affection for you, Lee. I wonder if Benjamin could give me the correct word: is it 'phileo' or 'storgamos'? I remember learning, many years ago that there were four words in the Koine Greek which are translated 'love'.

Two of them were 'brotherly affection' or just 'affection'. I asked my son about this, but he was really too busy to respond, so I still don't know. (Off Topic>Philadelphia is therefore 'the city of brotherly love'.)

In Christ

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

"I'm really starting to feel a real affection for you, Lee." - Connie

That's cause Lee just comes off gruff ... he's really a big softie! >grin<

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

You have said the following:

"I can see that I really don't owe you an apology, because on page 134, 2/3 of the way down is my exact posting. I have not enclosed that statement in quotations! And I will leave it to Benjamin and John and any of the other reasonable people on this board to reiterate my position, whether they agree with it or not."

I quoted your words as follows and I will deliberately leave out my normal quotation marks which I us to indicate when I am quoting someone else so that you cannot use the excuse that you did not put them in quotations. You said:

I have stated that there are paradoxes, which NO ONE can explain. But when there are many verses which plainly state that salvation is by grace, through faith alone, plain statements from the Lord, we humans have to be the ones who are lacking in the understanding, if other verses seem inconsistent.

Connie (hive@gte.net), March 09, 2000.

Now are you trying to claim that you did not say, "But when there are many verses which plainly state that salvation is by grace, THROUGH FAITH ALONE"?

Now Connie, anyone who is not blind can see that those are your exact words. You said them and I have copied them from the very post where you wrote them and pasted them here for you to see. Yet you still claim that you did not say it! Think Connie. You have said "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE". I have continually shown that such is what you said and I have shown that it is contrary to the very word of God. But now you deny it even which that quote staring you squarely in the face.

Now you challenged me to show you where you said these things. I have shown you and you still deny it. Is the truth important to you at all? NOW WHAT EXACTLY DOES YOU "ENCLOSING THE WORDS IN QUOTATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU SAID THOSE WORDS? The things that we put in quotations are those which others than ourselves have said. That what a "quotation" is, Connie. Now the fact that you did not put it in quotations is proof that YOU said those words and not someone else.

Now you asked John and Benjamin to judge this matter. I cannot imagine that they will be as deliberately as blind as you have been. You asked me to show it to you. I have done so. I do not need an apology but you should be careful for your own sake to not ignore the truth when it is so clear. You said those words, Connie, and I have proven without question that I have not in any way whatsoever misrepresented exactly what you have said. For I did nothing more than copy and paste your exact words. Honesty is a virtue Connie and for you to deny having said these words is completely dishonest.

But I will just ask you to tell us again. Do you believe that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" as you have stated in the post to which I referred? Now just answer that Connie. Or do you now agree that we are "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8,9) which is what the Bible teaches?

Do you agree with our Inspired brother James who said, " ye see then how that by works (Acts prompted by faith and produced by it) a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." (James 2:24). Do you agree that "Faith without works (Acts prompted by faith and produced by it) is DEAD BEING ALONE." (James 2:26).

Now I have not misrepresented you and we wait for your answer to my questions. Now you say that you do not owe me an apology. I have not asked you for one. I do not need such things. But you are falsely accusing me of having misrepresented your words and I most certainly have proven from my quotation of your exact words that you accusation is completely FALSE and contrary to the facts in every regard.

You can be sure that all who read this forum can see that I have correctly quoted your words and proven them to be from you and I have also proven that they are contrary to the very word of God.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

COnnie you said:

"As for the 'Sis' and 'Bro' discussion: I have noticed that Lee pointedly signs off as 'Friend' (meaning himself) to someone he disagrees with, and 'Brother' to someone he agrees with. And I also know there is a verse which I can't remember, which says something about calling others 'friends'. I think it was Paul."

Now Connie:

I have often called people brother that I disagree with. You noticed that Brother John and I had a misunderstanding and I still signed off as "Your Brother in Christ. You will notice that I even refered to that evil woman Nelta whose is extremely impentitent and teaching doctrines that I abhor as sister Nelta. Every person in this forum disagrees with me about the use of instruments in the worship but i call all of them my brothers and sisters in Christ. Therefore you are completely wrong in your assumption and your assertion offered without proof that I only call those who agree with me my brothers and sisters in Christ. That, Connie is patently false! And with just a littl;e bit of honest and non prejudical observation would have made that fact apparent to you. But I will now explain why I refer to some people as my friends and others as my Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

I refer to you as a friend. I refer to those who are in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:26,27) because of their obedience to the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16)and their having obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine ( Romans 6:17) that through faith in Christ cause them to repent of their sins (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3,5) and confess Christ with their mouth(Romans 10:9,10) and humbly submit to Christ by being buried with Him baptism ( Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:25-40; 1 Peter 3:21) and have thereby been born of the water and the spirit ( John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Heb 10:22; Eph. 5:26) as bothers and sisters in Christ for they are in Christ.

Now notice that they must have through faith "obeyed from the heart" meaning that they understood that they are expected by the lord to do these things "for the remission of their sins" and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38). Any one that has not been born again according to GOD'S plan of salvation as taught in His word is not in Christ and is not a CHRISTIAN. Therefore I do not refer to them with the affectionate term brother or sister in Christ. That phrase is reserved for those whom I know have obeyed that "form of teaching" (Romans 6:17) and are thus "in Christ" (Gal3:26,27)and I do not use those words refer to anyone else.

Now hundreds of people have been "baptized" when they went swimming but they did not go swimming by faith in Christ and their hearts were not upon him and repented of their sins and they have not confess Christ is the son of God and they were not baptized for the remission of their sins and therefore are still in their sins and have not the "spirit of Christ" and are thus "None of His" (Romans 8:9). SO just because someone says they have been baptized does not mean that they did it as a response that proceded from faith which comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. (Romans10:17). Therefore their action was not prompted by faith and produce by it) for it was not according to God's word. Therefore they never became Christians though they mistakenly though they were already Christians by a DEAD faith that did not prompt them to act in accordance with the commands of God and therefore could not be saved for their faith was "DEAD BEING ALONE.( James 2:24).

So when you see me call someone friend that means that I consider them a friend. There is nothing wrong with that now is there Connie?

When you see me call them brother or sister it means that I have reason to believe that they have "obeyed that form of teaching" as found in the doctrine of Christ that I have briefly explained above.

Now none but those who are in Christ Jesus are Christians. None but those who have been begotten again by the truth and have obeyed the gospel of Christ are my brothers and sisters in Christ. (1 Peter 1:22; Romans 6:3-6; Gal 3:26,27). For Paul says, " For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ". Gal 3:27. No one is in Christ who has no by faith and with his or her heart (Romans 6:17) repened of their sins ( Acts 3:19) confessed Christ with their mouth (Romans 10:9,10) and been baptized for the remission of sins. ( Acts 2:38) and those received the gift of the Holy Spirit( Acts 2:38). Only those who have done these things from their heart (meaning that they understood what they were doing by faith and why they were doing it and were looking for the promises of God related to having done these things) are children of God and members of the family of God. For that reason I do not refer to those whom I do not believe obeyed these things from their heart (that is with the understanding) as members of God's family and I do not pretend that they are Christians when I know that they are not because their faith was "DEAD being ALONE". So I refer to you as my friend Connie, and I sincerely mean it, but I cannot refer to you as my sister in Christ because I do not believe that you are in Christ. That is the very reason that I am so urgent about your seeing and understanding the truth so that you might be in Christ and be saved from your sins.

Now, Connie, please do not come back in here and accuse me of being rude to you in what I have just said. It is the truth and I can and will prove it to you if you are willing to discuss it with me. But I do not say you are not a Christian to insult you. I know that you think that you are a Christian. But I believe firmly that you have learned and followed false doctrines of men instead of the simple and pure doctrine of Christ.

Now you are the one that noticed that I called you friend while I referred to others as Brothers or Sisters in Christ. You implied that I did that because they agreed with me. That is not true, Connie. I did that because I beleive they are Christians for the reasons that I have described above and those whom I call my friends are those whom I love but they are not Christians. This is the reson that I cannot accept the idea that all memebers of all denomnations are Christians and we can have unity just by accepting one another as Christians and just pretend that they are saved from their sins. I will not do that for we are advocating unity with Christ through His word not unity against Christ by pretentious lies that deceive people into thinking that they are saved from their sine without faith in Christ. I mean faith that prompts and produces obedience to Christ in all things related to our salvation. For Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY Him." Heb. 5:8,9. I have given you the truth. My answer is honest though you may not appreciate it. But it is the truth. I cannot in good conscience call anyone a sister or brother in Christ if they have not by faith obeyed the very gospel of Christ from their heart(Romans 1:16; Romans 6:3-6; Romans 6:17).

I hope that you will remain my friend for I have told you the truth in answer to yur statements and I do not say these things to insult you. I say them to help you because if I am right then you are not in Christ and you are still in you sins and you will be lost without having those sins by faith removed in your obedience from the heart to the gospel.

Now I expect, because the evil one has so deceived and conditioned our world by preparing them to "stop their ears and nash their teeth" and scream at the top of their lungs "you are so rude to insult me by daring to imply that I am not a Christian" that I will not be suprized or shocked if you respond by saying those very words. But it will not change my intent to help you learn from the scriptures that such is the very truth taught in God's word.

So there is no need to expect me to refer to you as my sister in Christ, for though I consider you a friend I do not Consider you to be in Christ Jesus because your "FAITH ONLY" doctrine which is not taught in the scriptures has prevented you from obeying Christ from the heart in all that he has commanded you to do to obtain the remission of your sins and the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is no need for you to respond with a long list of "personal experiences" claiming that the Holy Spirit is leading you apart from the word of God for that is not the truth either. Your personal experiences prove nothing. Only the word of God is the truth concerning these matters and nothing else will suffice.

I do pray for you Connie for I hope that you will become obedient to Christ from the heart by doing the things that he has commanded.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie,

Thank you for the compliments, though I doubt if I really deserve them.

You said:

"Thank you for the correction on Ananias. I have no formal training in studying the Scriptures (as I'm sure you are aware) but those first three years of intensive study gave me a general overview of what the Lord wants from me.

"A blessing of that study, however, is that I really had no pre- conceived bias and as you could tell, I don't know what some Christians debate among themselves, such as a pre-Trib, mid-Trib, or post-Trib and pre-, a-, or post- millennial return of Christ."

I have studied through (and taught) the Book of Acts quite a few times in my life, and I continue to find new things I didn't really notice or grasp the first time through -- but not much that's really basic! One of the required freshman classes when I was in Bible college was a study of the Book of Acts, and I didn't learn much that year from or about the Book of Acts that I hadn't already learned in a Bible study at church when I was about 14 or 15.

Acts is not really a hard book to understand. I don't know what the three years of intensive study you refer to included. But may I humbly suggest that a thorough study of Acts (either by yourself or with other Christians) would be a lot more helpful than studying the variations of opinion about "The Tribulation", or engaging in speculative interpretations of the Revelation to John?

In connection with what is being discussed in this "thread", I would suggest special emphasis on the recorded conversions in Acts, noting what the people were told to "do", what they "did" in each case (whether they were specifically told to or not), and what results were either promised or recorded as having followed.

Later, you said:

"At the bottom of page 132, you say: '...Paul asks a group of BELIEVERS if they have received the Holy Spirit. When they profess ignorance about the subject, his next question is about their immersion!'"

Remember the difference in our "pre-conceptions". To you, saying that they are "believers" (actually, Acts 19 calls them "disciples", which means "learners" or "followers") means that they are already saved, and I presume this is why you highlighted "BELIEVERS". To me, because of my understanding of Acts 2:38; I Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:1-14; Gal. 3:27, and MANY other passages -- plus also James 2:19, which says that even the demons are "believers" -- I assume only that they believed, but were not yet actually saved. Regardless of the salvation aspect of the matter, it is clear that (1) Paul believed there was a connection between immersion and receiving the Holy Spirit; and (2) this group did not receive the Holy Spirit until they had been immersed, after which (and after the added factor of Paul laying his hands on them) they not only plainly had the Holy Spirit, but they had special gifts of the Spirit to show plainly to all that they had done the right thing.

"The reason I keep bringing up the reference to Paul's not baptizing many, is because if it were necessary for SALVATION, I believe (my opinion) that it is the thing that Paul would emphasize THE MOST; but it is not. His main emphasis is the grace in faith which we have as a gift of God, not of works."

The reason Paul was GLAD he did not baptise very many in the Corinthian congregation has been explained several times; the likely reason WHY he didn't baptise very many has also been explained by me. I try to encourage other members in the church to do most of the evangelism and the shepherding; I wish I could get them to do most of the immersing. Does that mean I don't think those things are important, even essential? No! -- simply that I'm trying to train and encourage others to do it in their turn.

This passage is the ONLY place I know of where Paul says anything about NOT baptising. As for how much or how little Paul emphasises baptism, and what it meant to him, take a look at these (other) passages: Rom. 6:1-14; I Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:23-29; Eph. 4:4-6; Col. 2:8-15. Notice the context in each place, including the fact that in at least a couple of these, Paul with one breath says that we are saved by faith and not by "works of the law", and with the next breath still plainly says that it is at the point of immersion that we become one with Christ Jesus and are saved through his grace.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Brother Rees:

I just want to sat Amen to your last Post. It is excellent and very much the truth as taught in God's word. AMEN AND AMEN.

I hope things are going well with you in Hong Kong.

I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I have repented; I have confessed; I believe; I have been immersed. I also have received the Holy Spirit, when I believed, but not in the same way that the Charismatics accept.

What I have NOT done is submit to the authority of the Restoration Movement denomination.

Lee: You make my salvation dependent on my joining your denomination.

That is why you pointedly refuse to call me 'sister' and even believe that I am not a Christian. It is also why you DO sign off as 'Brother' to someone you completely disagree with, such as Nelta and Benjamin.

Your 'other Gospel' is that everyone, to be saved, must be immersed in your denomination. According to your 'other Gospel' Christ is dead in vain.

John:

I said I agreed with everything you said in your long post on March 11. In reading it more carefuly, I see that I disagree with your final paragraph. It was a long post and I was thrilled with what you said in most of it, so wasn't careful to understand every word.

But I won't say you are not a believer because you and I disagree, as Lee implies I am not because I won't be baptized in his denomination.

I am getting a vague understanding that Lee is not the mean Pit-Bull he at first appears to be. People (generalization, which I know is dangerous) involved in the military often have cut-and-dried, well- defined, boxed-in philosophies.

And I have respect for many in the military and am thankful they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect me and mine. They have a different gift than I do. I'm more into hospitality and dinner preparing (and cleaning up!) and socializing.

Our pastor, whose youth I did not despise ~ he was 29 when he started pastoring our church ~ was at a military academy in California when at 16, he became a Christian and was set on fire for God.

But while he supports the military, (he doesn't discuss that much, since there isn't a lot of time to get out the Gospel - he concentrates on that) he has an unmilitaristic demeanor - except when contending for the faith, of course.

He just ended that portion of his minitry and attends when he is not conducting seminars on Biblical marriage throughout the country. There was no ugly separation and the congregants support his minitry. The assistant pastor is the Interim Pastor.

Things can be done decently and in order. To my knowledge, we do not have people storming out in anger at something the pastor or wife of the pastor has said.

I mentioned on one thread our former Christian School Superintendent, Principal, Bible and English teacher, and School Builder (God gave him several gifts), who resigned his V-12 appointment in the second World War (V-12 could be compared to the astronaut program we now have) because he couldn't any longer teach young men to go out and kill people.

He didn't have to kill anyone himself; he was an Instructor/ Teacher. Our Board President was a State policeman whose job was to protect the Governor, first Gov. Romney and then Gov. Millikin; The Supt's position was more from a standpoint of Christian love and the Board President's position was from a standpoint of obeying the law (a strict Calvinist, by the way ~ he had the appropriate name of Cornelius, and was from the Christian Reformed Church) Our school allowed diversity of opinion on minor matters, not necessary for salvation.

During one disagreement, the Sup't said: "Well, Neil, that's why you're a policeman and I'm a Preacher/Teacher." But he had been a high-ranked officer in the navy!

The Sup't./Principle/Bible and History and Government teacher who followed him also had been an officer (and member of OCU ~ Officer's Christian Union) in one of the services and had worked in the Pentagon before going into the ministry. He also was quite legalistic, but had a gift as a teacher, and my children adored both him and the previous Sup't.

There were many individuals from many different denominations, but we were one in Christ. We have been blessed to have belonged to a Bible study where there were about 16 people from eight or so denominations.

Our main mentor was a Godly lady who was the mother of the Radio Pastor of Moody Bible Institute, Don Cole. He was a missionary at that time, but when he came back to the states, he became the above. Don Cole was one of many we prayed for.

(Right away I am being placed in a neat little box.)

But none of the above matters, since 'I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.'

May you have the same Blessed Assurance.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Connie:

You said:

" You make my salvation dependent on my joining your denomination."

Now Connie you are being extremely dishonest. I have not said anything about you "joining" anything much less any denomination. In fact, I do not have a denomination for you to "join". I have not said any such thing in any of my words to you.

Now I challenge you to quote my exact words where I said that your salvation depends on "joining my denomination" as you put it. You will not be able to quote my words where I have said such a thing for I have never said anything like that. I would never say such because I do not belong to any denomination at all. I am simply a Christian and as such I belong to Christ. THat is what I am saying that you should be. Just a Christian and nothing else. I have clearly said that you are not a Christian because you have not "obeyed from the heart that form of teaching" (Rom6:17). revealed in the scriptures.

You say that you have believed and that you have repented and thet you have been baptized but you have also said that we are saved by "FAITH ALONE" which means that you did not respond in faith from the heart (or understanding) to God's command to be baptized. You were baptized to join some denomination but the scroptures teach that we are to be baptized for the remission of sins and then and only then will we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Acts 2:38). Since you have not done this you are not a Christian and you have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now that is what I have said. But I have not said anything about you "joining any denomination". I have not "joined any denomination" myself. I beleive the fact that you belong to a denomination is preventing you from knowing the truth and actually becoming a Christian. THere are no denomination that were approved of God in the New Testament and there are none approved of God today. God does not approve of denominationalism (1Cor.1:10). For that reason I do not belong to any of them. Now I hope that you understand me clearly Connie. I do not belong to any denomination because they are all sinful and any who belongs to a denomination is sinning against Christ our Lord. I also do not belong to any "restoration movement " denomination because the restoration movement is not a denomination. It is simply Christians who are calling upon people to come out of the denominations and be Christians only without belonging to any denomination at all.

Now all who have obeyed form the heart that form of teching (Rom.6:17) are Christians and the exact same thing that made them Christians automatically and by the same process added them to the body of Christ or family of God. When they are thus born again by obeying the gospel (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5) they are children of God (Gal. 3:26,27) and are in Gods family the Church. (1 Timopthy 3:15). Just like a new born baby does not have to "join a family" an newly "born again" person does not need to "join a "Church of his choice" or any denomination for he is already in the church of Christ or the family of God.

No Connie, no one in this forum is trying to get you to "join" any denomination, lest of all me. I am trying to persuade you to obey FROM THE Heart (Rom. 6:17) the gospel of Christ by faith, NOT BY FAITH ONLY so that you will be a Christian and nothing else.

I have said that I do not believe you are a Christian because you have not obeyed the gospel of Christ from the heart. Then you come back and deliberately accuse me of saying something that you knew that I did not say. Now you knew that I said nothing about you joining any denomination, didn,t you ,Connie? You had to know it because I did not say any such thing. So why are you being so dishonest as to claim that I have said something that I did not say?

You are merely trying to use prejudice to avoid the truth. For you know if you can get others to believe that I am saying that you are not a Christian because you are not a "member of my denomination" as you say it, then they will not listen to anything else that I have said. Your deliberate effots to prejudice this case is not going to work Connie. The people in this forum can read and they know that I have not said any such thing.

SO Come in here connie and prove that I said those words. Now I am asking you to PROVE it. Quote my words where I said that you are "not a Christian because you have not joined my denomination". You will not do this because you cannot. For I have not said anythng like it in any place whatsoever. I have said that you are not a Christian because you have not obeyed the gospel. I have also proven it to be true from the scriptures, which I now point out that you completely ignored.

I gave the proof and the people can clearly see that you have not responded to any of what I have said.

I know you do not want to face these truths. But do not dilberately misrepresent what I have said to you because you are afraid to honestly face these arguments and either answer them or accept them.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

My Savior, God, Intercessor,.... said "I Am The Way, the Truth, and the Life; NO MAN comes to the Father but by Me"....

He is my Truth.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

When I repented, I immediately was forgiven and then indwelt by the Holy Spirit. At this point I was saved, a Christian. The Holy Spirit then started teaching me, in the gentle, non-condemnatory, merciful way He has about Him. I stumbled; He lovingly picked me up and brushed me off, and resumed teaching me, with a repetition of all sequences.

He fed me milk; I grew; He started introducing meat, like the good parent He is; I grew; He started introducing concepts which were unfamiliar to me, as in any learning situation. I listened and did not rebel. My main question, as with Paul was: "What would you have me do, Lord? Eventually He got around to mentioning immersion. I obeyed. I grew. By then I knew that to find out what He expected of me, I had to read the Scriptures and pray. (Eating and breathing for the soul).

He, the Holy Spirit, one of three of the Godhead instructed me. I responded, and occasionally rebelled and disobeyed. He disciplined me, ever so gently, in most cases. I repented, confessed, obeyed and he forgave me and cleansed me. I grew. Not once was I afraid that I might be lost. He gave me that security, so that I could trust Him. He was always merciful, for He knew I was but dust.

There was no condemnation for I was 'IN' Christ Jesus. That process continues to this day. There have been occasions when I was quite rebellious (but trying never to break the commandments) and the discipline seemed, to me, quite stern. Then Job came to my remembrance; and David, that completely imperfect but repentant man who was a man after God's own heart. Most of the time, I was trying to be perfect, and came across as quite Pharisaic. That is when I discovered that my righteousnesses were just 'filthy rags'.

It was being ingrafted into the Vine of Jesus Christ which was really important. I knew that I was, for His Spirit bore with my spirit that I was his child.

Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Thank you, Lord Jesus!!

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Lee,

Thanks for your greetings and words of encouragement. Yes, things are going quite well here in Hong Kong. I put out a (roughly) monthly e-mail prayer bulletin about our ministry here. If you (or anyone else) would be interested in being put on the mailing list, please just write to my e-mail address.

I wonder, in your recent response to Connie (the most recent unless there has been another since I started writing this), if you haven't made a similar assumption about her to what she has about you -- an assumption that I'm afraid people on our side often make about people who don't agree with us about the exact purpose and results of immersion.

You said, " ... you have also said that we are saved by "FAITH ALONE" which means that you did not respond in faith from the heart (or understanding) to God's command to be baptized. You were baptized to join some denomination ....."

Has she said that she was "baptized to join some denomination"? If she has, I've missed that. I know this is a common teaching in many denominations. It seems that they see that baptism is important, but don't want to grant that it is for the remission of sins, so they have to find another way to explain it, and this is the one they come up with -- it is to join the church!

When I was a freshman in Bible college some of us attended a preaching clinic held by some big-name Baptist preachers. During the time we were there, visiting the Baptist church, they immersed a little girl (3 years old!). The preacher went out of his way -- perhaps because he knew some of us there were from the Christian Church -- to tell the girl (3 yrs old!) and everyone else that her immersion was NOT for remission of sins, but ONLY to join the church.

But not all "Faith Only" people believe that. Most that I have had serious discussions with believe (as I THINK Connie does) that they were immersed in OBEDIENCE to the command of Christ, given through his apostles and his church. They just believe that this is something that comes AFTER they are saved and "puts the seal" on what they have already received (as circumcision did for Abraham and his family, Rom. 4:6-13).

With regard to the rest of your sentence ".....but the scroptures teach that we are to be baptized for the remission of sins and then and only then will we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Acts 2:38). Since you have not done this you are not a Christian and you have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit." I ask again, the question I've asked before -- Is "for the remission of your sins" a part of the command or a part of the promise? This question is not original with me. Here is how the author of the article I got it from continues, "If it is a part of the command, then one is required to understand that purpose and to be immersed specifically for that purpose. If it is a part of promise, then it is fulfilled by God to the one obeying his command to be immersed whether that person understands fully or not."

Obviously there are some limits. We don't have a sacramental view like the Catholics and other pedo-baptists -- the Spanish conquistadors are said to have rounded up the local people in areas they invaded, "baptised" them (by sprinkling), and then killed them so that they would go straight to heaven. No belief at all! And no one believes that swimming or bathing will save you. But notice that the author says "the one OBEYING his command to be immersed." The New Testament tells a lot of things that happen when you are immersed. I certainly didn't understand all of them when I was immersed. Is my baptism deficient because my understanding was incomplete? Do I need to be re-baptised every time I understand something new about baptism?

If I meet someone else whose understanding of what is accomplished by baptism is incomplete or inaccurate, Scripturally, I do my best to teach her/him what the Scriptures really do teach. I wouldn't be wasting my time in this forum if I didn't think that it is important to teach that immersion is "for remission of sins" and that there is no promise of salvation without it. I think I have been arguing this point as strongly as anyone. But I am not God, and if someone has been immersed for a Scriptural reason, including "obedience to the command of Christ" (which is what you have been stressing yourself), it is not my place to judge that her baptism was invalid just because she hasn't yet come to understand some part of what the Bible teaches is accomplished by and at our baptism. If I continue to teach, with patience, I trust that God, through his Holy Spirit (which can even work in the lives of non-Christians, though not with the same force or intimacy), will enlighten her, and if she does need to be immersed again, she will see this herself. An "in-between" conclusion that she MIGHT reach is that "I wasn't actually saved until my immersion" (second immersion, since she said she was immersed twice, though the first time was before she had faith), "BUT since I WAS immersed in obedience to Christ, that was enough."

Attacking people tends to make them defensive and may make them closed to hearing what they need to hear. (So please don't take this as an attack on you. I am just trying to bring a little balance to the discussion for the sake of helping us to "hear" each other again.)

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Amen, Benjamin. Ever the level-headed one.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

God Bless you, Benjamin and John. I am crying again.

What a couple of SUPERheros!! God Bless you, also, Lee.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Brother Rees:

I do not have much time at the moment and I will respond to your remarks about how much we are to "understand" when we are baptized in order for it to be as your say "valid". But for the moment I want to respond only to your final remarks wherein you unjustly accuse me of "attacking people". These are your words:

"Attacking people tends to make them defensive and may make them closed to hearing what they need to hear. (So please don't take this as an attack on you. I am just trying to bring a little balance to the discussion for the sake of helping us to "hear" each other again.)"

Now Brother Rees, you have been extremely unjust in your implication that I have attacked "people" in this forum. In this particular quote you imply that I have attacked Connie. Now anyone can read my words and see that I only replied to her concerns that I referred to her as a friend instead of a sister in Christ. In answering her I told her the truth. I did not pretend to have some other reason for my habit of referring to those whom I believe to be Christians as Brothers and Sisters and those to whom I believe to not be Christians as friends. I did not attack her at all. I have strongly attacked her doctrine, which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ, but you cannot show any place wherein I have personally attacked her.

Now I will come back later when I have time to show that I am correct in teaching that she is not a Christian because she has not "obeyed from the heart that form of teaching"(Romans 6:17). But for now I only want to register my protest to your unjust implication that I attacked Connie by telling her the honest truth about why I do not refer to her as my sister in Christ. The truth is that I do not believe that she is my sister in Christ. Because I chose to tell her the truth it was necessary for me to explain my reasons for not believing that she was in Christ. Now telling someone the truth is not attacking them. I even asked her to not come back and accuse me of being rude to her by my words because I did not intend them to merely be rude. I intended to tell her the truth. I did that and you come back and do what even she did not do. You imply that I attacked her personally. Now brother Rees, I have not done any such thing and I think you know that I have not. Now I knew she would not like what I said but it was the truth and it was in response to her concern that I call others "brother and sister" and refer to her "pointedly" as she put it, as "friend'.

Now it has never been and it is not now my habit to "attack people" in these matters. I do vigorously attack their arguments and doctrines that I consider contrary to the doctrine of Christ. This is scriptural and right to do. I will continue to do so.

You asked me:

"So please don't take this as an attack on you. I am just trying to bring a little balance to the discussion for the sake of helping us to "hear" each other again".

Brother Rees, I do not take it as an attack on me because I know that you are telling me what you consider to be true. Now if you can tell me things that are contrary to what I believe to be true, in what is an effort on your part to help me and others, and you can expect me to have enough sense to see that you are not attacking me. Then why on earth do you not allow me to do the exact same thing to Connie and others in this forum? For I have not attacked her or anyone else in this forum in my efforts to correct error anymore than you have attacked me in your effort to correct what you perceive to be my "errors" concerning this subject. Now you know I have not attacked Connie or anyone else in this forum and I believe that it is extremely unjust for you to imply that I have done such. I have attacked their arguments and false teaching but I have not "attacked" Connie or anyone else personally in this forum, ever!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

"Part of the reason I discount your long postings is because they are filled with inaccuracies and false witness. I have to say that when you rail on and on, with no paragraphs to speak of, I do turn you off. You'd better develop a new approach if you want others to address what you say."

Now, Connie, You say that my postings are filled with inaccuracies but once again you merely assert without proving that your assertions are true. Anyone can do that Connie. But it takes honesty to make an assertion and then prove it to be the truth. So why not present the specific "inaccuracies" and "false witness" to which you refer and let all of us examine them to see if they are in fact inaccurate or if you are actually mistaken about them. You do not want to do that, do you Connie? That would be too honest and far too risky for then you may be found out to have made a "false witness" yourself.

Then you say that I had better develop a new approach if I want others to address what I say. Why do you use such imperative language as if you are ORDERING me to change my approach? Connie, I do not have to change my approach just because you do not like it. That is strange, Connie. Every one complains about the length of my post as you have done and I even understand it and they are somewhat shorter since I have been able to refine my extremely limited ability in the area of writing. But as far as addressing what I say, I have received more "addressing" of what I say than I have time to deal with. And many of these "addresses" come from those who claim, as you have done, to ignore everything that I say because my post are too long. Isn't it strange, so many like you claim that they do not read my lengthy post but they manage to constantly "address what I say"? That is interesting indeed! Read for yourself, Connie. Take notice of how many people address what I say in this forum. Notice also how many, who address what I say, also complain that they do not like the length of my post and refuse to even read them. Now if they really do not read them how is it that they manage to "address" them?

I do pray for you my friend,

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Lee, I am confused. And judging from Benjamin's recent post, I am not the only one. Connie says that she believes that Jesus is her Savior, that she has been baptized into Christ according to the commandment and desires to be fully obedient to Him as her Lord, but because she does not understand baptism fully, she is not a Christian, according to you? Perhaps you can enlighten me a little. Two verses come immediately to mind: Romans 14:4 - "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." and Mark 9:40 - "for whoever is not against us is for us." (And also the motto, "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only.")

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

ROMANS 12: 19-20 KJV

Dearly Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; For it is written, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.'

'Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.'

'Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.'

GALATIANS 5: 14-26: Amplified

For the WHOLE law [concerning human relationships]is complied with in one precept: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

(( Connie's insertion > Notice there is no mention of baptism or even faith; of course, this verse is not talking about salvation; it's talking about works.< But should we not speak and DO where the scriptures speak, (as I've read often enough on this forum) and be silent where the Scriptures are silent?

This verse is very loud and pointed; no room for reinterpretation; In Luke 10: 29-37: 'And who is my neighbor?'; and then Jesus goes into the parable of the 'Good Samaritan'; in the final verses of this passage he says:

(36 & 37)'Which of these three, do you think, proved himself neighbor to him who fell among the robbers? HE ANSWERED: 'THE ONE WHO SHOWED PITY AND MERCY TO HIM.' AND JESUS SAID TO HIM, "GO, AND DO LIKEWISE.))

Back to Galatians 5: 15: [Amplified]

But if you bite and devour one another [in partisan strife], be careful that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say: " walk and live habitually in the (Holy)Spirit - - responsive to and controlled and guided by the Spirit; then you will certainlynot gratify the cravings and desires of the flesh - of human nature without God.

17...

18: But if you are guided by (led) by the Spirit YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW..'

19: Now, the doings of the flesh are clear - - obvious: they are immorality, impurity, indecncy;

20: Idolatry, sorcery, ENMITY, STRIFE, JEALOUSY, ANGER (ILL TEMPER), SELFISHNESS, DIVISIONS,(DISSENSIONS), PARTY SPIRIT, PECULIAR OPINIONS (HERESIES);

21: Envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who do such things SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.'

22: But the fruit of the (Holy)Spirit < Connie's insertion: That by which we can judge whether you are a Christian or not..> [the work which His presence within accomplishes] - -IS LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, (AN EVEN TEMPER - -FORBEARANCE), KINDNESS, GOODNESS, (BENEVOLENCE), FAITHFULNESS;

23: (MEEKNESS, HUMILITY) gentleness, SELF-CONTROL [SELF-RESTRAINT]; Against such things, there is no law [that can bring a charge].

24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus, the Messiah, have crucified the flesh - - the Godless human nature-- with its passions and appetites and desires.

25: If we live by the (Holy) Spirit < Connie's interpretation: are 'born again'> - -, let us also walk by the Spirit < Connie's interpretation: do good works>; If by the (Holy) Spirit we have our life [in God], let us go forward, walking in line, our conduct controlled by the Spirit.

26: Let us not become vainglorious and self-conceited, competitive and challenging and provoking and irritating to one another, envying and being jealous of one another.'

James 2:22-24: [Amplified]

22: You see that [his] (Abraham's) faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works.

23: And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed - adhered to, trusted in, and relied on - God, AND THIS WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS [as conformity to God's will in thought and deed], and he was called God's friend.

24: You see that a man is justified (pronounced righteous before God) through works of obedience as well as by what he believes.

I Peter 3:21: [Amplified]

And BAPTISM, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inner questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth (bathing) but by [providing you with]THE ANSWER OF A GOOD AND CLEAR CONSCIENCE [INWARD CLEANNESS AND PEACE] before God, BECAUSE YOU ARE demonstrating WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE YOURS] THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

My interpretation of that is that baptism is COMPLETELY a figure, or a figurative expression, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What sayest Thou?

Now, that is why I don't often say what my interpretation is. The Amplified gives every possible word of translation, and leaves it up to the reader to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

But, I would welcome anyone else's interpretation. Neither of them is necessarily correct, though.

In Christ, by virtue of His completely adequate death on the cross for my sins,

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

And before you say it, Danny, I would most certainly NOT accept a Mormon into fellowship (although a Christian Standard survey of ministers last year stated that an alarming percentage of CC ministers would!).

Incidentally, I am impressed ... not too many people in our movement know about ol' Sidney and our unfortunate connection with the Mormons.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Danny,

I can think of a number of possible responses to the two postings you sent in response to two of mine. First and foremost among them is --

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!?!

Lee,

I'm sorry you feel offended that I characterised the tone of your messages to Connie as "attacking her". I don't know what was in your heart when you wrote them. I don't know what your motives or intentions were. All I can speak about are the impression they leave. I get the feeling from things she has said that she feels she has been attacked. (I may be wrong, but I'm speaking of impressions here.) I get the impression that others also feel that she and some others have been attacked by you. My own impression has been that they "looked" like an attack. They certainly don't come across as very loving.

I'm sure you feel you can justify WHY you have taken the approach you have, but from the outside looking on, the impression is more like an attack than a real wish to persuade. I'm not trying to be Connie's "Hero". I would like to see her change her views, and I believe the kind of approach I have been trying to use is more likely to succeed than the kind you use.

Why would anyone even have the "impression" that you are attacking her? Here are some quotations from one of your more recent postings to her, with comments from me on how I saw them:

"Now Connie you are being extremely dishonest. I have not said anything about ..." NOT, "I think you misunderstood me", or "where do you find that in what I said?", or even simply, "I didn't say that", or ..... Just, bluntly, "you are being extremely dishonest."

"You were baptized to join some denomination but the scriptures teach that we are to be baptized for the remission of sins and then and only then will we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Acts 2:38). Since you have not done this you are not a Christian ....." As I pointed out previously, I don't think she has ever said she was baptised to join a denomination. (Should I accuse you of dishonesty?) You have said that the reason immersion is necessary for salvation is because it is a required act of OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If I have understood correctly what she has said, she was baptised IN OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If you want to change her, I think you'd better do something about showing her what the difference is between OBEDIENCE and OBEDIENCE. (I'm not saying there isn't a difference between what she had done and what the Bible requires. But continuing to shout "You've got to obey" isn't going to help her see the difference.)

"... So why are you being so dishonest as to claim that I have said something that I did not say?" Yet again you accuse her of deliberate dishonesty when it seems just as likely to me that she merely misunderstood your position. Her view that we require that people must be baptised "into our 'denomination'" is one that many people share. Some of them may be deliberately dishonest in saying that, but most that I've talked to who hold that view are simply misinformed or have misunderstood. If you say, "you must OBEY", and they feel, "I have obeyed", it's hard for some of them not to get the impression that what we really mean is "you've got to obey -- IN OUR CHURCH/DENOMINATION." (And no, we are not a denomination, but that is how we are perceived.)

"You are merely trying to use prejudice to avoid the truth. For you know if you can get others to believe that I am saying that you are not a Christian because you are not a "member of my denomination" as you say it, then they will not listen to anything else that I have said. Your deliberate efforts to prejudice this case is not going to work Connie. The people in this forum can read and they know that I have not said any such thing."

I know you didn't say what she said you said, but aren't you making a rather big assumption to say that she is deliberately trying to use prejudice, not only to "avoid the truth", but to make others stop listening? Wouldn't it be more loving to say, "you misunderstood my position" and then explain the difference between what you did mean and what she said.

Were those statements an attack on her? You say they were not, and I sincerely hope they were not intended that way, but they looked like they were to me -- even though I think you and I are basically on the "same side" in trying to get her to change her "faith only" views.

There is a saying that "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Our main goal must be to be faithful to Christ and His Word, no matter what the cost to us. But we can often be more successful in attracting people to Christ if we are more tactful and "attractive" ourselves; or we can turn people away by being too bombastic, too judgemental, too "unattractive" in the way we present the gospel.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

John:

You said:

Lee, I am confused. And judging from Benjamin's recent post, I am not the only one. Connie says that she believes that Jesus is her Savior, that she has been baptized into Christ according to the commandment and desires to be fully obedient to Him as her Lord, but because she does not understand baptism fully, she is not a Christian, according to you? Perhaps you can enlighten me a little. Two verses come immediately to mind: Romans 14:4 - "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." and Mark 9:40 - "for whoever is not against us is for us." (And also the motto, "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only.")"

Yes Brother John you are confused and anyone who thinks that just because some "claim" that they have obeyed God according to his word does not mean that they have in fact done so. As I told Brother Rees, I do not have time to discuss this at the moment but I do intend to explain what the scriptures have to say about this matter. When I explain it to brother Rees as I have promised to do I will explain it to you as well. I will show you from the scriptures that only those who "obey from the heart (Understanding) that form (or Pattern) of teaching" ( Romans 6:17) that is found in the gospel of Christ are "delivered from their sins". For it is God who decides who is saved from their sins. Neither you nor I have anything to say about it. God has told us plainly in His word exactly who he will save and whom he will not save. That is the word that I will use to demonstrate to you the truth concerning how much one MUST understand of the gospel in order to be saved. So just hold on John. I will provide the answer from God's word as I told Brother Rees that I would do. That answer will fit your question as well.

But I do want to say something here that is important. If I am correct in telling Connie that she is not a Christian because she has not obeyed the gospel from the heart according to the word of God then you two "superhero's" are helping satan to continue his deception of our friend Connie and she will lose her soul with your help. I do not think that she will "lift up her eyes being in torments" and begin "crying again" and call the two of you her "superhero's". Think before you do these things brethren.

You know that she is teaching everyone else that they do not need to be baptized in order to be saved and that baptism has absolutely nothing to do with salvation and yet you want us to accept her as nothing more than a "misguided Christian". I will come with the word of God and show as I have already done once but this time I will go into more detail to show that she is not a child of God. But you two "superhero's" should be ashamed of yourself. You most certianly demonstrate that you have need that someone teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God.

I do pray for all of you, especially Connie. For she does not need any "superhero's" to lead her away from genuine obedience to the gospel of Christ. She needs the salvation that comes only in the obedience to the truth in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your Brother in Christ and friend to Connie,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

It took some digging, but I found the article. The survey was done in 1995 and printed in the September 17, 1995 edition of the Christian Standard. A list of 14 Christian denominations were listed, as well as Mormons, and the question was asked of Christian Church pastors, "Please rate the following statement for each group as follows: 5 = Don't Know; 4 = None; 3 = Few; 2 = Some; 1 = Most. I consider people who hold the beliefs commonly associated with the following group to be my brothers and sisters in Christ." For Mormonism, 375 pastors of 422 surveyed answered the question. Their answers were:

I consider none of the people who hold the beliefs commonly associated with the following group to be my brothers and sisters in Christ:	324
I consider a few of the people who hold the beliefs commonly associated with the following group to be my brothers and sisters in Christ:	26
I consider some of the people who hold the beliefs commonly associated with the following group to be my brothers and sisters in Christ:	4
I consider most of the people who hold the beliefs commonly associated with the following group to be my brothers and sisters in Christ:	2
I don't know: (Yikes!)	19

I don't know about you, but to me that's fairly disturbing.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Adding all of those who replied that they would accept a few, some, and most Mormons as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and those who were clueless, and dividing it by the total number of those who answered ... folks, thats over 15% of the respondents. (And I wonder why I have to fight to periodically teach my class on cults!)

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Danny,

Touchy! Touchy!

1) I'm not interested in catching flies either. Nor am I particularly interested in pushing camels through the eyes of needles, but Jesus apparently thought that parables, illustrations, proverbs, etc., can sometimes help in making a point.

2) In the congregation you are a part of, when someone "comes forward" (or whatever way you do it) and wants to be baptised or to "place membership" (or do you agree with Nelta that that is unscriptural?), what catechism do you use?

As for me, if someone is wanting to be baptised, I ask a few questions based on Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian in Acts 9:37. I realise that verse is not in all manuscripts, but there is nothing in it that conflicts with other scriptures, and it gives us a good precedent to follow.

I DON'T ask them to repeat, verbatim, the "Good Confession", which combines what the Ethiopian said with what Peter said to Jesus: "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Since the ones I minister to do not know Greek (and even English is not their first language), the phrase "Jesus is the Christ" doesn't hold much meaning for them.

Instead, I ask them the following few questions:

"Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour of the world?"

"Are you willing to accept him not only as your Saviour, to save you from your sins, but also as the Lord and King of your life, to obey him in everything?"

"Are you willing to be immersed into Jesus Christ?"

If I am aware of a problem, I may ask them some more questions privately, but I don't think there is any Biblical precedent for requiring catechism classes or anything like that before immersing someone.

(As an aside, Connie, if someone asked you these questions before you were immersed, how would you have answered? Danny, if she had answered yes to all these questions -- and you didn't know all the other things she has disclosed in this forum this week -- would you have immersed her? And then suppose you had found out afterward -- after YOU had immersed her -- that she thought she had already been saved before her baptism, how would you have treated her then? Are you sure there isn't anyone in your congregation that doesn't have views similar to hers? How do you know?)

3) No, I would not accept a Mormon as a brother/sister in Christ, because their beliefs about who Jesus is are grossly heretical! But as for Connie, from what she has said, I think her views of who Jesus is and what he did are more Biblical than some I have met with from people who are accepted as members in good standing in Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but "our" churches are more likely to accept them than her.

I really don't know if she needs to be baptised again or not. I think that's between her and God. I do think she needs to come to a better understanding of what the Bible says is accomplished by our immersion. And my knowledge of Bible teachings on love, even toward those we disagree with, my knowledge of human nature, my past experience in teaching others like her, and her reactions so far in this "thread" all suggest to me that she is more likely to listen to, understand, and heed patient teaching on what the difference is between the "obedience" Lee is always stressing and her own "obedience" to what she understood to be a command of Scripture, and on how all this fits with what Paul says about no one being saved by "works", than she is to the constant accusation that she has not obeyed and is not a Christian. (Sorry about that excessively long sentence. It was hard to know how best to sub-divide it.)

4) I thought your comment about dualism was very perceptive, but all you have done with it is throw it in occasionally as a side issue and another accusation. Since this is one of the main things Connie is "stuck" on -- trying to understand how ANY physical act can make the difference between being saved and not being saved -- perhaps you could try explaining it to her. I tried. But it was your comment to begin with.

5) You mentioned the men in Ephesus that Paul re-baptised -- an incident that I have also referred to in the past. Interestingly though, Paul didn't ask "what did you believe about Jesus Christ?" He didn't ask, "what did you believe was accomplished when you were baptised?" He asked, "did you receive the Holy Spirit when you were baptised?" I guess Connie might have trouble if the WHOLE question were asked, since she believes she already had the Holy Spirit. But if someone asked her simply, "have received the Holy Spirit?", I think she would answer yes. What then?

6) I'm sorry if you feel that in what I said about the use of the terms "brother" and "sister" in reference to people in this group, I "subtly suggested" that I was the "good guy" and you were the "bad judgmental guy." I did not intend that. I was only saying that I had reconsidered the matter and decided that I couldn't do it without making some kind of judgement which I didn't feel it was in my province to make.

However, in what you said originally, are you sure you were not trying to make me the "bad guy" in being too broad and indiscriminate in who I would accept as part of the body? You certainly seem to be doing that with your silly suggestion that my views were so broad I would even include Mormons. (Tell me what I have said to give that impression.) Contrary to what you said about it, I did not "ask" if anyone minded, I said I "hoped" no one minded. There was no reason to respond unless you did "mind" -- or wanted to "subtly" rebuke me for my action.

Connie,

You quote I Peter 3:21 from the Amplified Bible, thus --

"And BAPTISM, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inner questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth (bathing) but by [providing you with]THE ANSWER OF A GOOD AND CLEAR CONSCIENCE [INWARD CLEANNESS AND PEACE] before God, [BECAUSE YOU ARE demonstrating WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE YOURS] THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST."

Have you ever read the explanations, in the preface of the Amplified Bible, of what they mean by the various parentheses, etc.? Square brackets mean, "clarifying words or comments, whether implied or not, WHICH ARE NOT ACTUALLY EXPRESSED IN THE IMMEDIATE ORIGINAL TEXT. Remove all the material in square brackets from this passage, and you have,

"And BAPTISM, which is a figure, does now also save you, not by the removing of outward body filth (bathing) but by THE ANSWER OF A GOOD AND CLEAR CONSCIENCE before God, THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST."

As for it calling it a "figure", the Greek word is "antitype", i.e one thing that corresponds to something else. The plain meaning here is that baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah and family in the Ark. Which is "the authentic", and which is "the copy" is ambiguous in the Greek, but I don't know that it matters here. He is saying that water "saved" in both cases. Does this fact (that it is a "figure") nullify the fact he states, that "baptism saves you"? Hardly. No one denies that baptism is a symbolic act. Paul says it also symbolises Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. But it is also a required act -- required, the Bible says, for remission of sins and salvation.

Brother Lee and Brother Danny, please don't waste more time arguing with me. Don't tempt me to waste more of my time arguing with you. But I'd also SUGGEST you don't waste time "attacking" Connie (or whatever you choose to call it) either. I really doubt if you will convince her that way. You MIGHT by gentle loving reason -- and prayer.

In Christ's service,

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

JOHN 3: 1-25 [AMPLIFIED]

1 Now there was a certain man among the Pharisses named Nicodemus, a ruler - a leader, an authority - among the Jews;

2 Who came to Jesus at night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know and are certain that you are come from God and are certain that You are come from God [as] a teacher; for no one can do these signs- these wonderworks, these miracles, and produce the proofs that You do unless God is with him."

3 Jesus answered him, "I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a person is born again (anew, from above) he cannot ever see - know, be acquainted with [and experience] - the kingdom of God."

4 Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother's womb again, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, "I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, except a man be born of water and (even) the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God."

6 What is born of [from] the flesh is flesh - of the physical is physical; and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not - do not be surprised, astonished - at My telling you, You must all be born anew (from above).

8 The wind blows (breathes) where it will; and though you hear its sound, yet you neither know where it comes from nor where it goes. So it is with every one who is born of the Spirit."

9 Nicodemus answered by asking, "How can all this be possible?"

10 Jesus replied,: "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet do not know nor understand these things? [Are they strange to you?"]

11 I assure you, most solemnly I tell, We speak only of what we know - we know absolutely what we are talking about; we have actually seen what we are testifying to - were eyewitnesses of it. And still you do not receive our testimony - you reject, refuse our evidence [that of Myself and of all those who are born of the Spirit.]

12 If I have told you of things that happen right here on the earth, and yet none of you believes Me, how can you believe - trust Me, adhere to Me, rely on Me - if I tell you of Heavenly things?"

13 And yet no one has ever gone up to Heaven; but there is One Who has come down from Heaven, the Son of man [Himself], Who is - dwells, Whose home is - in Heaven.

14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must - so it is necessary that - the Son of man be lifted up [on the cross];

15 In order that every one who believes in Him - who cleaves to Him and relies on Him, - may not perish, but have eternal life and [actually] live forever!

16 FOR GOD SO GREATLY LOVED AND DEARLY PRIZED THE WORLD THAT HE [EVEN] GAVE UP HIS ONLY-BEGOTTEN (UNIQUE) SON, SO THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN (TRUSTS, CLINGS TO, RELIES ON) HIM SHALL NOT PERISH - COME TO DESTRUCTION, BE LOST - BUT HAVE ETERNAL (EVERLASTING) LIFE.

17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge - to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on - the world; but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

18 He who believes on Him - who clings to, trusts in, relies on Him - is not judged (he who trusts Him never never comes up for judgment; for him there is no rejection, no rejection, no condemnation; he incurs no damnation). But he who does not believe (not cleave to, rely on, trust in Him) is judged already; (he has already been convicted; has already received his sentence) because he has not believed on and trusted in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ's name.

19 The [basis of the] judgment (indictment, a test by whichmen are judged, the ground for the sentence) lies in this: that the Light is come into the world, and people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, fot their works (deeds) were evil.

20 For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the light and will not come out into the light, but shrinks from it, lest his works - hid deeds, his activities, his conduct - be exposed and reproved.

21 But he who practices truth - who does what is right - comes out into the light; so that his works may be plainly shown to be what they are, wrought with God - divinely prompted, done with God's help, independence on Him.

22 After this, Jesus and His disciples went into the land (the countryside) of Judea, where He remained with them and baptized.

23 But John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, for there was an abundance of water there; and the people kept coming and being baptized.

24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison.

25 Therefore there arose a controversy between some of John's disciples and a Jew in regard to purification.

I don't see water baptism until verse 22.

AMEN! SO BE IT.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

If I come to you professing to be a Christian and then say to you...

I believe, but that belief does not save me! Am I saved?

I have repented, but that repentance does not in any way save me! Am I saved?

I have confessed Christ, but I refuse to believe that confession saves me! Am I saved?

I have been baptized, but that baptism doesn't save me, in fact has nothing at all to do with my salvation! Am I saved?

"And you know what? No matter what you say or no matter how much proof you give me from God's Word, you can not tell me I am not saved, because I KNOW I AM SAVED...I GOT DOWN ON MY KNEES AND ASKED JESUS TO COME INTO MY HEART AND SAVE ME FROM MY SINS...I EXPERIENCED SUCH JOY AND COMFORT INSIDE AND THERE WAS THIS WARM FEELING THAT CAME OVER ME ALL OF THE SUDDEN, SO I KNOW I AM SAVED!!"

"The reason I confessed, the reason I repented, and the reason I was baptized is to be obedient to my savior and for no other reason. And besides that, there are way more scriptures that speak of belief than anything else, and I have yet to see all of these things in the same verse anyway."

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Connie,

I appreciate anyone who quotes Scriptures, but I have my own copy of the Amplified. It is OK but far from THE authority on Scriptural understanding. Did you miss verse 7? Jesus said you must be born of water and Spirit. Unless you make the foolish leap of logic and try to claim the water as amniotic fluid, you cannot but see baptism there. Peter said in Acts 3:38 that we must repent and be baptized (water) for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If I understand John 3:7 then in order to be born again, you must repent and be baptized.

Repentance is not spoken of in that passage, neither is praying and asking Jesus into your heart.

Connie, I am not attacking you, never have, but this is a serious matter. We can disagree on end-time interpretation, but if you get the plan of salvation wrong, eteranal life is at stake. Baptism is very clearly presented in Jn 3 as I see it. I find it hard not to see it unless you are trying to argue around it. Please re-examine that text and see if I am not correct.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

That's supposed to be Acts 2:38, not 3:38. Can anyone tell me what Acts 3:38 says?

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Brother Rees:

You said:

"Brother Lee and Brother Danny, please don't waste more time arguing with me. Don't tempt me to waste more of my time arguing with you. But I'd also SUGGEST you don't waste time "attacking" Connie (or whatever you choose to call it) either. I really doubt if you will convince her that way. You MIGHT by gentle loving reason -- and prayer."

Brother Rees as I told you earlier, I did not have much time to respond for my Job is taking a lot of my time at the moment. However, I want to suggest to you that if you do not want Danny and I to "waste" your "time arguing" with you then try to resist falsely accusing either of us. For you have twice now argued that we are attacking Connie. This makes twice that I deny that charge. I have not attacked Connie in anything that I have said and niether has Brother Danny! I have attacked Connie's false beliefs and teaching. This is the correct thing to do. Now you would prefer a much softer approach. That is fine. But the fact is you do not just prefer it, in this case you are insisting upon it. I reject your insistence. But, if that is what you want, then you provide the soft touch. But do not expect me to be soft on any false doctrine. I have told Connie the truth when she asked why I referred to the rest of you as Brothers and Sisters and I refer to her only as a friend. I explained that it is because I do not believe that she is in Christ and that therefore I cannot and will not call her my Sister in Christ. Now that was honest.

Now let me respond to these words from you:

"I'm sorry you feel offended that I characterized the tone of your messages to Connie as "attacking her". I don't know what was in your heart when you wrote them. I don't know what your motives or intentions were. All I can speak about are the impression they leave. I get the feeling from things she has said that she feels she has been attacked. (I may be wrong, but I'm speaking of impressions here.) I get the impression that others also feel that she and some others have been attacked by you. My own impression has been that they "looked" like an attack. They certainly don't come across as very loving."

Now Brother Rees, there is no need for you to apologize for my feelings when you say "I am sorry that you feel offended that I characterized the tone of your messages to Connie as "attacking her". Now, Brother Rees, you are not responsible for my feelings. I am solely responsible for them and if I feel the need to apologize for them I will do so. But there is no need for you to pretend that you are apologizing TO ME by apologizing FOR MY feelings for which I alone am responsible. I did not say a word to you about my feelings. I said plainly to you that I did not "attack" Connie as you falsely claimed. Now if you think that you should apologize for that false statement then do so. But if you honestly believe that I attacked her and I have said nothing to change your mind then do not give a pretentious apology. Hold your ground and prove your assertion. But do not come in here acting as if you are in some way truly apologetic. For it is shear hypocrisy to apologize for someone else's feelings for which you have no responsibility at all. Now I know that you did this because you want to be "gentle with me" because it would certainly be hypocritical for you to criticize my strong words about Connie's false doctrine and at the same time deliver a strong rebuke to me for saying them in the way that I have. Brother Rees, you do not have to be "gentle" with me. You see, I want the truth and I do not care in the lest how strongly you deliver it. In fact even when you deliver it in a weak, and sweet way I will try to see it. Those who care nothing for the truth complain the most about their feelings being hurt by the messenger. I am not concerned about my feelings and I do not ask for or need your concern. We want the truth. Period. Now if Connie, or anyone else for that matter is genuinely interested in the truth she might want to seriously consider the "rebuke of a Friend" like Lee Saffold. For I can tell you that the rebuke of a friend is far better than the kiss of an enemy. Those of you that are trying to show that Connie is a Christian even though she has not "obeyed from the heart that form of teaching" delivered in the gospel of Christ are her enemies. Your "kisses" do not bring her salvation when she has clearly not been obedient to the gospel. And if I am wrong, which I am not, my words to her would not take away her salvation if she REALY has it. But the truth is she has not obeyed the gospel and those of you who are trying to leave the impression that she has are standing in the very path of the truth that will bring her to obey that blessed Gospel and obtain the very salvation that she has been deceived into thinking that she has when in fact she does not have it. Therefore, our discussion should not be about whether Connie has been attacked. Our discussion should be with Connie about whether she has obeyed the gospel or not. I believe that she has not even "obeyed God" in baptism. For, as I will show later, you cannot obey God's commands without doing what He says for the reasons that he says do it. Connie Claims that she has done what God says but she has done what she wanted to do for her OWN reasons and not what God told her to do for the reasons that he said to do it. And I will show that the reason God wants her to obey is a part of God's command that she pretends to have obeyed. But, it will take some time to write this line of argument and I have asked that all of you allow me the time to do it. But you ignore my request and continue to assert the false accusation that I have "attacked Connie".

You say:

"I'm sure you feel you can justify WHY you have taken the approach you have, but from the outside looking on, the impression is more like an attack than a real wish to persuade."

You are not on the outside looking on any more that anyone else in this forum is on the "outside". It is your opinion that the impression is that this is more like an attack than a real wish to persuade. Now Brother Rees, I work very hard during the day and I usually stay up at night to write in this forum. I have much better things to do than "attack people" in this forum. I am trying to persuade and the gospel has the power to do that and when some one pretends that they have obeyed God when they have not I do not care how softly you tell them that they have not obeyed God you will be PERCEIVED as attacking them by "calling them a liar" or some other words that you may have used. Now I have done this sort of preaching for a long time and I do not agree with your approach any more than you agree with mine. But simply because you and Connie agree that I am attacking her does not make it true.

Then you quote some of my comments wherein you claim that I have attacked her as follows:

"Why would anyone even have the "impression" that you are attacking her? Here are some quotations from one of your more recent postings to her, with comments from me on how I saw them:

"Now Connie you are being extremely dishonest. I have not said anything about ..." NOT, "I think you misunderstood me", or "where do you find that in what I said?", or even simply, "I didn't say that", or ..... Just, bluntly, "you are being extremely dishonest."

Now Brother Rees, the reason that I accused her of "being extremely dishonest" is because it is the absolute truth that she was in the post to which I referred being extremely dishonest by claiming that I had said that "I wanted her to join my denomination" when in fact I had said no such thing. In fact she had deliberately and completely ignored everything that I said and dealt with her own fabricated words that I had not said and she did so deliberately to gain sympathy for herself because she could not answer the actual arguments that were presented to her and that is a fact that all can see if they care to.

Now you seem to think that I should have said she misunderstood me. Now brother Rees, I might have said something like that if I had any good reason to believe that she had misunderstood me. But I believe that she understood me all too well. Now, it is not my habit to deliberately lie, brother Rees, and if I had said to her "I think you misunderstood me" it would have been a lie because I did not think any such thing. Now I am not going to lie just to make it appear that I am a nice guy and to avoid anyone using my words to draw a false conclusion that I was attacking Connie. Nor am I going to Lie just to make her or anyone else feel more comfortable. We are not Children, Brother Rees, Connie is 66 years old. She is a big girl now and she can bear up to strong words from a friend, like me, who cares deeply whether she goes to heaven or hell when she dies.

Then you complain that I falsely accused her of saying something that she did not say by quoting my following words with your comment:

"You were baptized to join some denomination but the scriptures teach that we are to be baptized for the remission of sins and then and only then will we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Acts 2:38). Since you have not done this you are not a Christian ....." As I pointed out previously, I don't think she has ever said she was baptized to join a denomination. (Should I accuse you of dishonesty?) You have said that the reason immersion is necessary for salvation is because it is a required act of OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If I have understood correctly what she has said, she was baptized IN OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If you want to change her, I think you'd better do something about showing her what the difference is between OBEDIENCE and OBEDIENCE. (I'm not saying there isn't a difference between what she had done and what the Bible requires. But continuing to shout "You've got to obey" isn't going to help her see the difference.)"

Now Brother Rees she did not say she was baptized to join a denomination. And if you will read my very words that you quoted you will find that I did not SAY THAT SHE SAID any such thing. For the truth is she did not say anything like that and I did not accuse her of saying anything like that. I affirmed that she was baptized to join a denomination and I still believe that it is true. Though I will admit that I did not offer any evidence to support that assertion but it was not my intent to do so until she denied that she was baptized to Join a denomination. At that time it was my intent to offer the proof. The reason that I did this is because it is Connie's tactic to ignore every ounce of evidence that we work so hard to provide for her because she is deliberately trying to avoid the truth. She has in fact ignored most of the arguments that I have made to her. Therefore I decided to use her tactic of asserting without proof in order to get her to ask for and demand the proof. Then I felt that she might at least feel the need to notice it when it was given upon her request. But your assertion that I accused her of saying something that she had not said is false. For I did not claim that she had said such a thing. I asserted it myself and deliberately did not give the proof of it. So that accusation from you is completely in error. In other words, Brother Rees, your PERCEPTION is completely wrong about that matter. I notice that you did not have the courage to accuse me outright of dishonesty but you wanted to didn't you? Now I believe that any thinking person can see that I was not dishonest in merely stating my view that she was baptized to join a denomination. It was not different than her assertion, without proof, that I wanted her to be baptized into our denomination with the exception that I can prove that she was baptized to join a denomination but she cannot prove that I "only want to baptize her into my denomination". Especially since I do not have a denomination. Now if she can assert something when she knows that she cannot prove it to be true then I can assertion something if I know that I can prove it.

Now if I had accused her of "saying" that she was baptized to join a denomination then you would have been correct in accusing me of dishonesty because that is exactly what it would have been. In fact you appear to have believed that I did accuse her of saying such a thing but you did not have the strength of character to honestly tell me that you thought that I was dishonest instead you simply asked a question that would create that impression in such a way that no one could accuse you of actually claiming that I was dishonest. For you have learned the fine art of leaving false impressions rather than making bold assertions and standing by them until you either prove them to be true or are forced by the facts in the case to surrender them. Well, Brother Rees, I have shown that your PERCEPTION that you deliberately tried to create was in fact completely wrong.

Then you try to leave the impression that Connie has, in fact, obeyed God as I was arguing that she should with these words:

"You have said that the reason immersion is necessary for salvation is because it is a required act of OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If I have understood correctly what she has said, she was baptized IN OBEDIENCE to a Biblical command. If you want to change her, I think you'd better do something about showing her what the difference is between OBEDIENCE and OBEDIENCE. (I'm not saying there isn't a difference between what she had done and what the Bible requires. But continuing to shout "You've got to obey" isn't going to help her see the difference.)"

Now Brother Rees you are correct in claiming that Connie SAYS that she was baptized in obedience to a Biblical command. But just like all of the rest of her assertions she does not offer any PROOF that such was in fact the case. You simply take her at her word but you do not know that she was in fact baptized to obey a BIBLICAL command. Now I do not have to explain to her the difference between "obedience and obedience" as you so absurdly claim. That would become self evident if you had not intervened in our conversation with your efforts to protect her from what you had falsely perceived as my "attacks on her" But now we may never get to continue that conversation because so much has come between those conversations that I bet we cannot even find them anymore! It would have become self evident however If I had been given the opportunity to ask HER so that she could tell US just exactly WHICH BIBLICAL COMMAND SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE OBEYED WHEN SHE WAS BAPTIZED? But you did not give me the chance to ask that question now did you? You and others are so sure that people can become Christians simply by being baptized to "obey God" that you do not even notice that not one person in the New Testament did such a thing. They were baptized to obey God's commands but they obeyed the "form of doctrine" from the heart. (Romans6:17). There is a "from of Doctrine" that they all obeyed. But I will save that lengthy discussion for later. Right now I would like for Connie, and maybe her "superheroes" can help her, to tell me just which command of God was it that she obeyed when she was baptized? Now please give us the chapter and verse of the command that SHE claims to have obeyed. For one cannot be baptized to obey God unless they obey from the heart the very command that God gave in exactly every detail of the words of that command. Anything less than such obedience is not obeying God. Anything less would be doing God's will in MAN'S way! And that Brother Rees is not being baptized to obey God. It is being baptized just so you can CLAIM TO HAVE OBEYED GOD. In order to actually have obeyed God you must do ALL that he said. So we wait. Will you ask Connie to tell us which of God's commands concerning baptism it was that she intended to obey when she was baptized. Now I do not mind if she claims to have obeyed ALL of what God said concerning baptism because if she does it will be very easy to show that she has done no such thing. But I believe no matter which of God's commands concerning baptism she CLAIMS to have obeyed I can show from what God's word says in that command when compared with what Connie has said in her own words in this forum will demonstrate for all very clearly that she DID NOT OBEY GOD'S COMMAND when she was baptized.

Now Brother Rees, those are some bold assertions for you. I will prove them when and only when we are told by Connie exactly which command concerning baptism she CLAIMS to have been obeying when she CLAIMS that she was baptized to obey God. After that I will give a small dissertation for all who are interested, not just for Connie, concerning that "form of teaching" that all New Testament Christians submitted to when they OBEYED GOD in baptism and Connie can compare it to her actions and the rest of you can settle this nonsense concerning how much concerning baptism must be understood before one's baptism can be considered valid! I am disgusted that anyone in the restoration movement should be so ignorant of the word of God to even contemplate such absurd foolishness! So it is evident that she is not the only one needing to learn these "first principles of the oracles of God" it is clear that some of my brethren, and you are one of them, need to learn these things as well.

Now These words are challenging brother Rees, but they are not an attack. This challenge to Connie is designed to make the truth as clear as a bell for anyone who honestly is seeking it. I guarantee you that when we get an answer to this question you and others will see that Connie did not obey ANY of God's commands related to baptism. Now if you do not want to argue with me any more. That is fine. But do not intervene in my discussion with Connie of these matters unless you are willing to argue with me about them because that is exactly what will happen when you step in to help her defend false doctrine. You go ahead and use your approach which you deem to be so much superior to mine. In fact I do not doubt that you will do a better job and get better results. I thank God for you in that regard and pray fervently for your success for then we would see Connie actually obey God in baptism since she has not yet done so now wont we brother Rees? Or is it possible that you will simply satisfy her that she has in fact really obeyed God in Baptism, when she has not done any such thing, and she will live the rest of her life believing that LIE while you spend your time convincing the rest of us to "leave her alone" because she was "baptized to obey God" and therefore she is a merely a misguided Child of God. I sincerely hope that you are not doing that sort of thing in the mission field. Especially in the one that is so dear to my heart.

But I must do what I think is right according to the word of God. I do not sneak up on someone with the gospel as if I am ashamed of it. I speak it clearly up front with no pretence of even trying to be accommodating. This is the Gospel of God! It is not the mere opinion of anyone in the "restoration movement". That Gospel must be OBEYED on GOD'S TERMS not man's. Man must surrender and we must BOLDLY proclaim it. Those who do not obey that gospel will be eternally lost. I hope you can sense what that means brother Rees. ETERNALLY LOST without God and without any hope whatsoever. ( 2 Thess. 1:7-11). I speak it with love in my heart and that does not require weakness in my voice. I do not have to yield to those who are "stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears". I will not compromise just to make everyone including you feel more "comfortable". Now you can accuse me of running people away. But you cannot prove it. You do not know if it is me or the truth that I am teaching that runs them away now do you? Those who love the truth will not be run away by the "rebuke of a friend" but they will despise the "kiss of an enemy". Those who allow Connie to maintain her illusion of having "OBEYED GOD" in baptism will be held accountable in the last day if she dies in that illusion. Do not let it be said of you brother Rees. If you will honestly read what I have said in all of my post you find nothing that approaches the harshness of those who originally preached the gospel of Christ. Christianity is not for the weak at heart. If you cannot take harsh criticism in the name of Christ you will not survive as a Christian I can assure you. Just go through all of the threads and see all of the HARSH WORDS that have been directed toward me and look hard and see if you find any complaint about it. Then only reason I respond to you in this false charge is because MY FRIEND CONNIE is going to lose her soul because she has not obeyed God in baptism and you are worried about her feelings. I am concerned about her soul and she is of an age that strong words should not hinder her from thinking about the truth. But she has not really rejected these things because of harsh words. She has rejected them out right before she ever heard them. She closed her eyes and ears long before she ever heard a harsh word. Now as to your false charge that I am shouting at her. I am not. I do not know what a shout would sound like on the internet. But my words are not shouts and your perception that you are trying to fabricate about that matter is also not true.

Then you complain that I attacked Connie with these words:

"... So why are you being so dishonest as to claim that I have said something that I did not say?" Yet again you accuse her of deliberate dishonesty when it seems just as likely to me that she merely misunderstood your position. Her view that we require that people must be baptized "into our 'denomination'" is one that many people share. Some of them may be deliberately dishonest in saying that, but most that I've talked to who hold that view are simply misinformed or have misunderstood. If you say, "you must OBEY", and they feel, "I have obeyed", it's hard for some of them not to get the impression that what we really mean is "you've got to obey -- IN OUR CHURCH/DENOMINATION." (And no, we are not a denomination, but that is how we are perceived.)"

Now, Brother Rees, I do not care what the perception of the world may be. I care only what the precepts of God most clearly are. I will not act as if any of the worlds "perceptions" concerning us Christians are justified. For they simply are not justified. If we do not live in harmony with God's word then we must be corrected just as the world must be corrected with the gospel. I do not care how many people "share the idea that "we expect people to be baptized into our denomination". The reason that they share that is not because we have said anything to justify such but because they have been taught by people like Connie to use such against us. Now the reason that I accused Connie of being dishonest in making that claim is because that is the truth. She was and remains dishonest, with your support about that matter. For she could see that I had not said any such thing and she just ignored every argument that was made and jumped right to an argument that she had been taught to use in such cases. Now that is a fact whether you have enough experience in dealing with these matters to notice it or not. You even admit that I am correct in your following words:

"Some of them may be deliberately dishonest in saying that, but most that I've talked to who hold that view are simply misinformed or have misunderstood."

That is right Brother Rees some of them are deliberately dishonest in saying that we only want them to be baptized into our denomination when they have been told over and over again that we do not have a denomination! And Connie is one of those few. Now we are not talking about the "most" you have talked to. We are talking about Connie and her deliberately ignoring all of what was said in my post and simply replying with "you just want us to be baptized into your denomination" when no one, least of all me, had said any thing like that to her was and remains dishonest.

Then you say:

"If you say, "you must OBEY", and they feel, "I have obeyed", it's hard for some of them not to get the impression that what we really mean is "you've got to obey -- IN OUR CHURCH/DENOMINATION." (And no, we are not a denomination, but that is how we are perceived.)"

Now Brother Rees, If the word of God says obey and it tells you specifically what you are to do and the reason you are to do it then you can SAY "I have obeyed ONLY if you can SHOW the command that you CLAIM to have obeyed and show that you have done all that is involved in that command. If you have left anything out you cannot say I have obeyed. This is not about what "I say" and what "THEY FEEL" this is about what GOD SAYS and what THEY HAVE DONE. If those two do not match they can FEEL all day long that they have obeyed but the truth will still be that they have not obeyed if they have not done exactly as God commanded them as He commanded them to do it until judgment day.

Now you have hindered this effort to teach Connie the truth enough. So if you do not want to argue with me and Danny stop hindering the progress of the gospel of Christ with your "speculations about "what we say" and how they feel". Let us get on with what GOD SAYS and what Connie has actually DONE. Now when Connie comes in here and tells us just which command of God she CLAIMS to have obeyed when she "obeyed God in baptism" then we will know the truth because then we can compare what she did with what God said and we all, including Connie, can know the truth about this matter. But your speculations and assumptions based on what we say and what they feel are USELESS brother Rees. Just Plain useless. I do pray for you Brother and I sincerely pray that you will stand with greater firmness for the truth. For I can assure you that none of us have been as vicious as you will soon see those who resist the truth can be.

I do love you in Christ Brother Rees, but I sternly object to your words which have been a hindrance to the truth in this particular discussion. Now there is no need for any one to come to Brother Rees defense. I am not trying to harm him. I am trying to make him and others realize that when we are trying to teach the truth, if you would like me or anyone else to take a different tack. Why not use enough common sense to send us an e-mail before you jump in and hinder our efforts to teach the truth? Surely anyone can see that this diversion is exactly what Connie hoped to create with he deliberately DISHONEST words.

Now we need to learn what Christ mean by, "Let us be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. " And do not even attempt to draw the erroneous conclusion that "harmless as doves means "milk toast". For if you do you will need to study those birds first. For if you study them the idea of "milk toast" will vanish from your mind. But I quote this to emphasis the be "wise as serpents"

Think on these things Brothers,

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Scott,

Off the top of my head - isn't Acts 3:38 "thou shalt not vote for either Clinton or Gore, for the Liberal shall deface the earth and spoil its morals with the pollution of Political Correctness"? (MMRV - Markee Mark Revised Version) :~( :~)

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Hello, D. Lee Muse,

The thing that saved me was the death of my Savior on the cross ~ his shed blood. The repentance, confession, belief, and baptism were all steps of obedience. I obeyed them all, but perhaps not in the sequence you insist on.

What more do you want me to say or do?

Please enumerate them for me, if you have time. I've done everything the Scriptures have told me to do.

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

To know my position, re-read pages 158-160.

In Christ

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Scott:

May people misunderstand John 3: verse 7. That is clearly speaking of physical birth (which involves water) and spiritual birth. It is even explained right there in the context, and no mention is made of baptism.

The only reason I use the Amplified is because it gives every possible translation and also, the brackets and italics and all marks have meaning which helps one to undersatnd the context. (You do have to use them and not ignore them, however.) By the way, do you have a favorite version? I have a Bible with 4 side-by-side translations ~ a Comparative Parallel

Scott, I appreciate your forbearing attitude.

To John and Benjamin: I hope I didn't get you in trouble for calling you 'SUPERheros'. I'll be more serious and ladylike from now on.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Scott: I'm pretty sure that verse is John 3: 5 (and 6), instead of 7. I looked it up in all four translations, KJV, Ampl., NAS, and NIV, and they all say the same thing in meaning. The NAS says, [6] "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I think this is one of the main ones that Lee keeps citing, but I'm right on this one. No water baptism until v. 22. The 'water' named in 3:5 is birth water.

I am doing a whole page of the verses I live by, with the Holy Spirit's help. I have several things that are keeping me busy, as you all do. And I know you have several Bibles, I'm sure, but I wanted the whole context to be presented.

I was looking at them with the attitude that, if I found a verse which says baptism is required for salvation, I would definitely change. So far I haven't found it.

Can we all get on the same page by looking up the meanings of:

1.) salvation

2.) justification

3.) sanctification

4.) righteousness

5.) grace

6.) mercy

It seems that some use some of these terms interchangeably, but they are all separate concepts.

Respectfully In Him

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Lee: you would do your soul better if you prayed and read your Bible.

I feel bad for you! You have no peace and you believe lies. (And tell them!) Satan is the father of liars.

You have repeatedly said that I was baptized to belong to a denomination, which is a lie. Our church has absolutely no connection to any other church, except as Christ has made us part of the Body of Christ.

Our church will not even baptize or accept into membership anyone who does not give a personal testimony of their conversion, and if they can't remember their conversion, they must give a statement of faith.

I have belonged to this church for 33 years. In fact, I would not belong to a denominational church unless I had no choice. IT IS A LOCAL, AUTONOMOUS, (SELF-GOVERNING) INDIGENOUS (SPRANG UP IN THE COMMUNITY) AND HAS NO TIES, DOCTRINALLY, TO ANY OTHER CHURCH. I think this is possibly the 5th time I have said this.

You do not show the fruit of the Spirit, so I can assume you are not a believer. I think you are parroting a few verses you have heard from your close circle of friends. You need to get into the word, so that you can grow. You are stuck at an infantile stage. You have no wisdom or understanding; certainly no love, forbearance or mercy. But I forgive you, and may God have mercy on your soul.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie, My, My, Oh what a tangled "double standard" we weave.

BTW Connie (I know Danny we should shake the dust off our feet, But..) John 3:5 is still refering to water baptism. It doesn't make any sense to tell some one they must be born physically first, that is a given and the individual has no choice. Why bother with such a statement? It is in the context of having to do two things by choice, together. By water AND spirit. A person has no choice in physical birth. I know this will fall on deaf ears, but it was just for the record.

Lee, I appreciate your strong stance on scripture and your courage in presenting it. I told Danny the other day that I have no problem with your lengthy posts. I can read quickly through what you are trying to teach as they are the biblical truths I have been taught all my life, therefore I know exactly what you mean and can get on to your point. Incidentally, I am fifth generation Christian Church/Church of Christ ( maybe more, but thats the oldest records I have,) and so therefore Connie's statement of "a small circle of friends" is inaccurate. But it doesn't matter, truth is truth regardless of the number who believe. "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matt:7:14 Man, How narrow minded and unloving is that? (Sarcasm)

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie,

I believe what you have said to Lee to be totally uncalled for. I have not only watched Lee on this forum but have also had several private emails with him - he's even in my address book now (quite an honor Lee). He has, since the beginning of this forum, been a staunch advocate for truth. I have seen him try to goad some answers from you, but never doing to you what you did to him. That's my 2 cents, and the rest is between you and Lee and God.

Now, about John 3, whoever corrected me, thank you, I did indeed mean 3:5, not 3:7. The entire context of this passage has to do with physical birth, but not the way you see it, Connie. Nic came to Jesus with the understanding that he was ALREADY part of the kingdom because he was a Jew. The physical birth was not good enough, you must be born again, Jesus said. Then he said in v. 5 that you must be born of water and Spirit. This was something a person would choose to do.

I'm at home and not close to my books, but there is a term for amniotic fluid, but Jesus did not use it here. If Jesus means physical birth here, it is the ONLY place in the NT (or OT) that a birth is referred to as born "of water." I'll say it again, the only way you miss baptism here is if you are trying to, especially when Peter makes the connection so clear. Connie, this is said respectfully and I am ONLY dealing with the issues you have brought up.

If you have trouble dealing with ALL the responses that come your way, why dont you do as I do and pick one or two threads to spend time on? and participate in them and be thorough. Just a suggestion.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

I have repented, confessed, believed, and been immersed. The only thing I disagree about is the efficacy of baptism FOR SALVATION, when many verses indicate we are saved by faith, through God's mercy.

Odd that you should mention shaking the dust from my feet. That is what I have been considering doing. Very few people have been hateful on this forum, but they have driven many away. (Not all come to mind ~ I've only been here a couple of weeks.)

For the ones who have been intellectually (and Scripturally) honest, who have been forbearing, gentle, kind, and loving and merciful, thank you.

To believe that God is not giving revelation since the Pentacost (which of course has to agree with His Word) is a strange and new concept to me. I'm thankful he is nurturing me and instructing me and keeping me safe in His care.

May He do the same for you.

From one who is repentant to God, and wishing to be obedient to Him in all that I say and do:

Please re-read all of the verses I have given you, for your sakes, not mine. 'Study to show [yourselves] approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of truth.'

'Come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing'>

In Matthew 25: 31 - 46, on what basis does He separate the sheep from the goats? (He already KNOWS who His own are). On their works! The good things they do for one another.

You will be glad when I go, and perhaps I will shake the dust from my feet before too long, but they crucified my Savior so I want to endure this buffeting as a good soldier for Jesus, the Christ.

I love all of you, as He does, and wish you no ill.

Lee said to be honest with him and it didn't matter what another (Benjamin and John, godly men) said to him, he could take it and wanted people to be honest with him.

I was.

Forgive me, but I am accustomed to a fellowship where we put a watch on our words, and try to not 'flame' people. I was wrong to respond in kind, and ask for forgiveness.

I can't wait to see my Beloved brethren this Sunday.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Danny:

To address your statement: I came here because of the heading 'the Christian Church' which I naively thought was about the Christian Church.

I had no evil intent nor wish to convert you to my belief. But then, being challenged, I gave a statement of my Faith, and a reason for the hope that is in me.

Dnny, I am praying for the people of this forum.

I acknowledge that I could be wrong, but for anyone to expect me to disavow what I know to be true, because of my own experience is absolutely weird.

I will TRY to just watch for awhile and not comment ~ I guess I am a glutton for punishment ~ but there is information here that I would like to understand. But Satan has definitely had his influence here.

As for my wanting to convert you to my position, I beg to differ. I have been put in the position of defending my Faith, once delivered.

I have no church building to which to entice the people of this forum, so what would be the point? I dare say that as a representative of the CoC, your words have done more to turn people away from Christ than anything I could say.

Even if I should leave, God will send another Nelta, dbvz, Dr. Jon, Barry Hanson, Philip Watkinson (whose words were particularly informing to me, and it seems as though he is a preacher in CoC), and many I can't remember, or even a Connie to be a thorn in your flesh until you repent.

I know you've developed, over 18 years, a successful method for eliminating those who disagree with you from your life, and now from this forum.

I pray that 'when the saints are called up yonder, that you'll be there', not on the correctness of your doctrine, but by the shed blood of Christ.

That's why I'll be there.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Danny: (sorry I misspelled your name before)

I do want to address Acts 2: 36-47.

There are several verses I am working on ~ the ones which are paradoxical, and those are among them. I cannot say they will not still be in that category when I complete my study.

The sequence seems to be, in verse 41"

'Therefore those who accepted and welcomed his message were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.'

So the sequence seems to be: believe; be baptized. In the verses above, they were baptized right after they believed.

I realize that you completely discount my words, because they don't fit what you have been taught, but my personal experience was that He didn't bring that understanding to my mind until later.

I had already repented, confessed, and received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, bacause otherwise I would not have been listening to His every word ~ the ones I knew about. We knew we were ingrafted into the Vine and God's family at that point.

No amount of exegesis on anyone's part is going to alter what I know. So, of course, then MY exegesis is colored by my experience.

Our lives were completely changed at the point of our believing, and we were 'new creatures in Christ'. Of course, we were babies, even though adults. But I was amazed at the strength he gave me, young as I was.

We started reading the Bible and praying.

We stopped drinking (never did much of that); my husband quit smoking (had smoked up to 3 packs a day for 10 or 11 years [I had given a different figure on another thread, because of my somewhat faulty memory as I age]; we started going to church as soon as we knew that's what God wanted.

We were led to a Conservative Baptist Church, because that was where the Lord led us. We were at every meeting there was. We went to their conventions. The pastor there had an attitude which I haven't seen again in all these years ~ until I came to this forum ~ with a very self-righteous, legalistic, bombastic, Pharasaic delivery. (I had forgotten dear Ken, until recently).

At one of their conventions there was a table full of reading materiel: 'The Case Against the Mormons'; 'The Case Against the Roman Catholics'; 'The Case Against the Seventh Day Adventists'. I'll bet there was even one on 'The Case Against the Churches of Christ'.

It was quite a stumbling block to me, as a new Christian. I said, 'Can't we just give the positive message of Christ dying for us?' But of course I now know that preachers (pastors) and elders have a responsibility to correct incorrect doctrine, but are they to do that over the first and second commandments?

Poor Ken. In my youth, I also said to him, when I found out he had ulcers, "You know, Ken, ulcers are caused by what is eating you, not by what you are eating." A less 'at peace' person I have rarely found, until I came here.

I also, with my questions of the Episcopal priest I took my Greek classes from (as a young mother of five, who couldn't have gotten away from my responsibilites for study any other way ~ this was on Saturdays at his home with perhaps ten or so people in attendance) got him to thinking about what he really believed.

A year later, he left the Episcopal priesthood to become a Lutheran pastor. ;-) Oh, well, I tried. Also, I wanted to learn the Greek so badly and he was the only person I knew who could teach me. of course, it was elementary, as I've stated. But now I have son who teaches it (and Latin) at the college level, so I can ask him my questions (when he has time).

I don't believe that anything which happens to a Christian is accidental, so I've been asking God what His purpose is to bring me to a place where I'm abused. And then I remember that he was put on a Cross for me. I still have not gotten an answer about that, so will stick around for awhile.

I'm still working on the verses put to me, but it is very time- consuming and I have several things I'm working on simultaneously. As I've stated several times, I will address those at some future time.

I am not avoiding them, or running from them, as accused. I hope that you are not running from them either. I hope you run from error thatis obvious from my standpoint.

And the dead horse I'M beating is, as Barry or dbvz said: LEGALISM.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie,

First; You said that you were replying to Lee and Danny in "Like manner" I'm sure that this is your perception of this... but I disagree.

Second; I want to bring something to your attention that I've noticed (and I'm sure a few more have as well but have let it slide by).

I have seen over that past few weeks that you have referred to Page numbers ("Page 133" or "Pages 47-55") multiple times. While I am sure that you think that the rest of us know what you are talking about (becaused you've experienced it) I want to assure you that we don't. The reason for this is because you are referring to the pages you have printed out on your printer. Now, I for one do not print these pages out and therefore haven't gotten any page numbers to refer to. Perhaps some of the othere here have, I do not know.

But if I DID print these pages out, chances are that you and I do not have the same model printer. Why is that important? Well, you see... the page numbers you are referring to are given to the page by the "print module" of your browser. (BTW, we may even have different browsers - You may have MS Internet Explorer, while I may have Netscape Navigator) Now your page probably has a header which may contain information like; Your Name, The url of the page you printed, the NAME of the page you printed, the page number OF the number of pages printed. AND it probably contains a footer which may contain things like; the date OR other materials. I'm sure that YOUR browser contains things and prints things DIFFERENTLY than mine does. Now add to this equation the fact that we have different printers and thus, different "Print areas" on each sheet of paper and the fact that I may use legal size while you use letter size paper and you come out with my printout of this thread having the information you just referred to on a completely different page number. (BTW I forgot that on my "VIEW" I can change the "TEXT SIZE" of the thread which throws things further off scale.

Now why am I giving this complicated view of why things are different on your computer than mine? To draw a parallel as it were. See, you didn't understand this information before and therefore thought that your understanding of it was the "Standard" because that was what you "EXPERIENCED" and thought that everyone else "EXPERIENCED" the same thing. Now by bringing your attention to this errancy, you will probably change your mind about HOW you refer to things in individual threads. Because, like the rest of us, you want us to know to what statement you are referring.

You see, I've told you the "TRUTH" I've let you SEE the truth... I can even "PROVE" to you that I've told you the "TRUTH". And now you are beginning to doubt the "TRUTH" you thought you knew.

Now, you can argue with what I've just told you, but you cannot "PROVE" that what I've said is not the "TRUTH"! But you CAN go back to your "EXPERIENCE" and believe that what the little voice on your shoulder told you was the "TRUTH". I mean how can it NOT be the "TRUTH", you "FELT" it didn't you? You "KNEW" from the very pit of your soul that it was the "TRUTH" didn't you? How can it NOT BE the "TRUTH" now?

These are all questions you will have to ask yourself when you look at God's unchanging WORD. God does not change, nor (do I believe) does He have any new revelations for us. Remember, we are not to "add to or take away from" His holy scriptures. The Holy Spirit is there to help us understand His Word. Not to change what He said. Be sure to test all Prophets by the standards of the Bible.

Just because you've "Experienced" something does not make it the "TRUTH". Be very careful how you apply your "experiences" to the Bible. They may be lies from the very master of lies.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

"I have repented, confessed, believed, and been immersed. The only thing I disagree about is the efficacy of baptism FOR SALVATION, when many verses indicate we are saved by faith, through God's mercy."

Connie, There are many verses which say we are saved by faith and we believe them all, but there are NONE that teach your false doctrine that you have repeatedly stated. There are NO VERSES that teach we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" as you have claimed. I have asked you several times to give us just one single verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" and you have not yet even attempted to produce such a verse for all of us to read. Now if you could find just one verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE", since you have claimed that many teach such, this controversy would be over. One verse that said, "we are saved by grace through faith ALONE" would settle it completely for me. But you have not found a verse that says any such thing now have you, Connie? But you are not honest enough to admit that you cannot find one, are you? If you knew of such a verse, with my strong challenges asking you to show it to us, I can assure all that if you could find one you would have already given it in order to demonstrate just how wrong I am about it. Yet all you can do is call me a liar and complain that I have been so unkind to you. But we still wait because you have not yet found such a verse and will not admit that you cannot find it.

Now Connie, You have not been immersed in accordance with the Command of God in His word. I have asked you to tell us exactly which command in God's word you obeyed when you were immersed? You have persisted in refusing to answer that question, now haven't you? Do tell us which of God's commands you obeyed when you were immersed? I will list just a few of them but you may have another in mind so I ask you again which command of God, written in His word, did you obey when you were immersed?

Were you immersed according to the Lord's teaching in Mark 16:16 where he said " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:"?

Were you immersed according to the Command of our Lord which he delivered by the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 where he commanded the people to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?

Were you immersed according to the teaching of Christ through Peter when he said in 1 Peter 3:21 "the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us..."?

Were you immersed according to the Lords teaching to Paul through Ananias in Acts 22:16, "and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord"?

There are many others but these will suffice. Were you baptized to obey any of these commands? Or were you baptized just to give the appearance of obeying God? For you cannot genuinely obey God unless you obey exactly what he said do for the reason that He said do it. So pick the command of God that you CLAIM to have obeyed when you were immersed and tell us which one it is and then we will compare your teaching with the command that you CLAIM to have obeyed and we will establish that either you obeyed contrary to your false "faith only teaching" or you followed your "faith only teaching" and therefore could not have obeyed the commands of God according to his will for ALL OF HIS COMMANDS are contrary to the doctrine of salvation by faith only! We wait for your answer Connie. Now do not neglect this question as you have ignored everything else. For this is your chance to PROVE whether you really obeyed God when you we immersed. It sould not take you more than 5 minutes to just tell us which command of God, in His word did you obey when you were immersed?

Then you say the following:

"Very few people have been hateful on this forum, but they have driven many away. (Not all come to mind ~ I've only been here a couple of weeks.)"

None have been "hateful" in this forum Connie toward you or anyone else. You only assert such a thing. I want all to notice that you do not prove it to be the truth. Now Connie why not try to prove what you say? I have not been hateful to you but I have told you the truth and it was not pleasant for you to hear it but that is not being hateful. I have accused you of being dishonest and I have proven it to be true but you did not respond to that post. You do not really know what has driven some away from this forum you merely assume it from your unpleasant experience of being challenged to face the truth that you have not been obedient to the gospel of Christ and you are teaching a false doctrine that men are saved by the blood of Christ by "faith ALONE". I have asked you and others numerous times to give us just ONE verse of scripture that says we are saved by "grace through faith ALONE" and you have never even attempted to do so. You cannot do so because there are none that teach that pernicious lie. So I ask you again Connie. Come in here and tell us just one passage that teaches that we are saved by "faith ALONE".

You say:

"Lee said to be honest with him and it didn't matter what another (Benjamin and John, godly men) said to him, he could take it and wanted people to be honest with him."

I did ask you to be honest with me and I appreciate your willingness to make a small attempt finally to be honest. But you are only willing to be honest now about your bitter feelings toward me. I have no objection to that. In fact I can understand that it must be difficult to have the things you have believed for the last 33 years criticized and challenged with the very word of God. I do not expect you to be comfortable about that fact. But while you are being honest why do not you honestly admit that I have never asked you to be baptized into a denomination? Why do you not be honest and admit that you have NEVER given us ONE single passage in the Holy Word of God that teaches we are saved by faith ALONE? Why do you not be honest and admit that you have denied saying things which you are on record as having said? That, Connie is called LYING. Notice that you said the following:

""SHOW ME WHERE I SAID 'BY GRACE YOU ARE SAVED ALONE'.(As a quotation). I don't believe I said it, but I may have. If you can show where I said it - - on which thread, and on which page is it? IF I SAID IT, AND THEN SAID I DIDN'T SAY IT, I - WILL - APOLOGIZE!!!" Connie (hive@gte.net), March 14, 2000.

Then on the 13th of march in this same thread you had already said it once but I want to quote it for you. You said:

"I asked you before to give me the thread and the page where I said that we are 'Saved by grace ALONE'. I don't believe I said that, but being human, I could have. 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man/woman should boast.'

If you can show me where I said those words as a quote of what the Scriptures say, I WILL APOLOGIZE. When are you going to apologise to me for your rudeness?" -- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 13, 2000.

Then, after clarifying exactly what I had claimed that you said I then referred you to your exact words as follows:

"Now the exact words that you have said was that, "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE". I responded to your post in which you said those words. Now I notice that you are asking me where you said we are saved by "grace alone". You cannot find any place where I accused you of saying that we are saved by grace alone. For that is not what you said and it is not what I accused you of saying. You said, "salvation is by grace through faith alone" and that is exactly what I have been showing you to be false doctrine. Now I want to point out that in every post I have contradicted your claim that "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE". I have said it so many times now that I am sure the entire forum is tired of hearing it. Now you have never said and I have never accused you of saying that we are saved by "grace alone". You have said and I have clearly and correctly accused and quoted you as saying that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE". I quoted your exact words in the post in which I responded to you. You said that "salvation is by grace through faith ALONE" and that is the exact words that I have accused you of saying and I have quoted you as saying and that I have proven from the scriptures to be completely false. I have challenged you time and time again to give us just one passage that says we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" but you have failed to show us even one!"

Then I referred you to the very post where your exact words, which I accused you of saying could be read by all as follows:

"Now all you have to do, Connie, is scroll up in this same thread to March 09, 2000 and you will find these words written by you:

"I have stated that there are paradoxes which NO ONE can explain. But when there are many verses which plainly state that salvation is by grace, through faith alone, plain statements from the Lord, we humans have to be the ones who are lacking in the understanding, if other verses seem inconsistent." Connie (hive@gte.net), March 09, 2000.

Now Connie, in this post dated March 09, 2000, you said that there are "many verses which plainly teach that salvation is by grace through FAITH ALONE".

Now you said it Connie and you promised to apologize if I showed you where you said such a thing. But that is not what you did is it Connie? Instead you responded by saying the following:

"Lee:

I can see that I really don't owe you an apology, because on page 134, 2/3 of the way down is my exact posting. I have not enclosed that statement in quotations! And I will leave it to Benjamin and John and any of the other reasonable people on this board to reiterate my position, whether they agree with it or not."

Now here I can only assume that you are referring to the remark where you had promised an apology which are the ones I have quoted above, because we do not have printers that print the same page numbers as yours so when you give page numbers no one can really be sure of which post you are referring. You also mention nothing about what you had said and why the words that I had quoted from you were not exactly the words which you claimed to have never said. Then your only EXCUSE for not apologizing was that those words "were not in quotes" and therefore you did not say them?! Now any thinking person can tell that you must have been asleep when you said such a thing. You said those words Connie and the fact that they were NOT IN QUOTATIONS is only further proof that you said them for all who know the English written language know that quotations are used to indicate that you are referring to the words of someone other than yourself. We rarely put our own words in quotation marks unless we are quoting something we had said in another place or time to a different audience. But let us assume that you we, by leaving out the quotations, indicating that you were quoting someone else. It would still be true that you were supportive of the words that you quoted, now wouldn't it. The plain truth, Connie is that you said those words and you meant them and you cannot prove that they are true according to God's word so you tried to deny having said such a thing and when confronted with irrefutable evidence that you actually said them you LIE again and say that you will not now keep your promise to apologize because they are not in quotations! Ha! Connie, you even want to change the rules of the English language to avoid the truth.

Therefore, Connie, your dishonesty is apparent to all. Even your "super hero's" cannot extract you from this deliberate LIE. Now you have accused me of lying. I do not mind, especially if you will prove it to me. For if you do so you will have done me a great service for then I can repent of having done so if it were true. But you did not call me a liar because you cared about me for you did not take the time to prove that your accusation was true. I therefore do not believe that I have lied to you about anything. But if you have any real evidence to prove that I have in fact lied I would appreciate your presenting the evidence so I can correct myself for I have no desire to lie. In fact, I am certain that I have not lied but I will wait for the evidence. But the evidence of your dishonesty is apparent to all. I have taken the time to give that evidence to you because I know that you will lose your soul over these things Connie. Your superheroes are not thinking of your eternal destiny. They are kind and good men who are extremely adverse to sharp rebukes and stern resistance to error. They assume that your intentions are good ones and none can fault them for the kindness of their good hearts. But they are not thinking of how extremely unkind and unloving it is to stand idly by and watch someone rushing headlong in to eternal damnation for using such deceptive tactics as you have used in this forum to avoid the truth. Now it is dangerous Connie to not love the truth. Your failure to answer the questions put to you and your complete inability to give even one single passage of scripture that supports your false doctrine that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" is proof enough that you are unwilling to deal with the fact that God's word does not teach such a doctrine. Read 2 Thess. 2:9-15. People will PERISH because they receive not the love of the truth Connie. You have not loved the truth . I say this not because you disagree and do not understand the teaching of God's word but because you deliberately refuse to deal with or even acknowledge that you have been faced with facts concerning your false "faith only" doctrine that you are not willing to even attempt to answer. In fact you know that you cannot find one single passage of scripture that teaches that we are "saved by grace through faith ALONE" as you have falsely claimed and yet you continue to insist that such a doctrine is the truth. Now that Connie is evidence that you love your doctrine which is not even found in one single place in the New Testament more than you love the truth of God.

I do pray for you for there is much more that I would like to say in my effort to help you see the truth of the gospel of Christ our Lord.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Brother Danny;

I sincerely appreciate your words in your last post. And I want to tell you that those of us who do not use instruments in the worship would greatly benefit from the preaching of a man like you. You know that I have often said if Brother Danny questions seriouly what I am saying that I will imediately cease saying it until I have gone thoroughly over the facts again. For I know that you are faithful to the Lord and His word and you are very competent to teach it and knowledgeable of it. I have learned much from you.

Therefore, you can always use me as a reference that will give you a glowing recommendation that is well deserved. It would be a blessing indeed if you were to "end up in a non-instrument church" before you retire. I mean that it would be a particular blessing to us. And to have one as dedicated to truth as your wife Jenny has proven herself to be often in this forum would double the benefit.

I can see that you are quite happy where you are and I am happy to know that the brethren there hold to the truth. For I am certain that if they did not you would work hard to reach them but I do not think you could be happy where the truth is not welcome.

I thank you again for you kind words and maybe some day I can preach a sermon or two in the Christian Church! Ha! Of course I warn you that I am seldom allowed in the pulpit in any place that I worship! Ha! I say that so my enemies can have some amunition for it is appearant that they are running low on their supplies! Ha! They need something to keep them from realizing that we intend to leave NO QUARTER. (For all you Naval men out there).

I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you in all that is good for the sake of the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Jenny:

I appreciate very much your words. They are truly encouraging to me. It seems that you a very good at deciding just when to arrive and lend support to the truth and you are very skillful in doing so. Wow! You say you are the "fifth" generation in the Lord's Church from your family. What a great blessing! It explains a lot about your knowledge of the scriptures and you ability to "contend for the faith". I agree with your statement to Connie about my "small circle of friends" which I now quote:

"Incidentally, I am fifth generation Christian Church/Church of Christ ( maybe more, but that's the oldest records I have,) and so therefore Connie's statement of "a small circle of friends" is inaccurate."

Indeed her statement is like most of all the statements that she has made. It is not only inaccurate in that the correct word would be to refer to a circle of "BROTHERS AND SISTERS" in Christ. My circle of friends includes quite a number of misguided people like my friend Connie whom I fervently pray for that they may come to know the truth as it is in Christ our Lord.

Now that circle of Brothers includes most important of all my "Elder Brother" who is also my Lord and Master Jesus Christ the very Son of God, and it includes Brother Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Sister Lydia, Sister Mary, and all of the Saints of God in the New Testament, all of the Saints of God in the body of Christ today, for we are all Saints, and the innumerable host of angels and the Church of the firstborn. For we are told in Hebrews 12:22-23, " But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect."

I would say that is quite an impressive "circle of Brothers and Sisters" in Company with Our Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that we all received when we "obeyed from the heart that form of teaching whereunto we were delivered" (Romans 6:17) The Holy Spirit that God has given only to those who obey him ( Acts 5:32; Acts 2:38) is in that "Circle" And He has taken the trouble 2000 years ago to lead the apostles into all the truth so that we have in His inspired word "all that pertains to life and Godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). I believe that "circle" is more than sufficient. And that those scriptures are more that sufficient to give us "all that pertains to life and Godliness". Those who believe in some mysterious moving and leading of the spirit of God separate from and contrary to the Word of God are "self-deluded" and it is extremely difficult to save one from "self-delusion".

Yet Connie appears to think that she has the Holy Spirit even though she has not obeyed God by being immersed according to his commands found in his word. But according to Acts 5:32 the Holy Spirit is given by God to "them that obey Him" and according to Acts 2:38 the Holy Spirit is the promise to be received by those who obey the command to repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins". This command gives us three things, not two. It says to (1) repent and (2) be baptized (3) to do both of these in order to the remission of sins and then the promise given is "and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". This is easy to understand and it is what all are expected to understand or they cannot be baptized to obey God. But I will save all of this until Connie has the nerve to tell us just which command of God she obeyed when she was immersed. Now that I have said that she probably will not pick Acts 2:38 as the command from God that she obeyed when she was immersed to "obey God". It is amazing that even some of my own brethren cannot see that there is not one single person in the New Testament that was baptized JUST TO OBEY GOD. Rather they obeyed God when they were immersed in accordance with the "Form of teaching that delivered them" ( Rom. 6:17). Which means that they obeyed from the heart ( which means that they understood) the exact commands that God gave concerning baptism. We cannot obey God in baptism, or anything else for that matter, unless we do so by faith, and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God ( Romans 10:17) which means that we must be immersed in the manner and for the reasons that God intended.

Sorry, I did not mean to get away from my purpose of thanking you for you very kind words and your support for the truth of the gospel. Danny is truly blessed with a faithful Christian wife. A blessing for which I am sure that he is very thankful to God.

I was not joking when I told brother Danny that my wife and I may find the chance to come visit with you some day. Your invitation to Dinner was especially compelling.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie, you say...

"I obeyed them all, but perhaps not in the sequence you insist on."

What logical sequence is there to the plan of salvation?

We must hear the word first, without hearing nothing will follow. Next must be belief of what was heard. Repentance and confession must follow belief as shown in the following verses. Baptism falls into place next, would it make sense that someone was baptized for the forgiveness of their sins before they had repented of those sins or confessed?

Rom 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

Luke 13:3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Rom 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Than you ask..."What more do you want me to say or do?"

Look up every time baptism (or form of) is used in the N.T. write down the GOD given reasons for being baptized, Believe what GOD has said baptism is for, be baptized for those reasons not some man made reason.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Connie:

You speak glowingly of the church of which you have been a member for 33 years as follows:

"I have belonged to this church for 33 years. In fact, I would not belong to a denominational church unless I had no choice. IT IS A LOCAL, AUTONOMOUS, (SELF-GOVERNING) INDIGENOUS (SPRANG UP IN THE COMMUNITY) AND HAS NO TIES, DOCTRINALLY, TO ANY OTHER CHURCH. I think this is possibly the 5th time I have said this."

If your doctrine, which you have failed miserably to substantiate with scripture, that "we are saved by grace through faith ALONE" is an indication of what is taught by this "church" that you claim is not a denomination, then it clearly HAS NO TIES DOCTRINALLY WITH THE WORD OF GOD EITHER! For you have been completely unable to fine one single verse in the entire Word of God that teaching the doctrine taught by your "nondenominational" if it teaches that "we are saved by grace through faith ALONE" as you have been teaching.

Now Connie you tell us that this is the fifth time that you have said that the church where you are a member is not a denomination. Connie, nothing is proven by how many times you assert something. It is proven the first time that you give evidence from the word of God that it is true. Now if you cannot prove that this church of which you speak is in fact the body of Christ or Church of God that we read of in the New Testament then it does not matter if it is a denomination or not it is not the "ecclesia" of God. It is not the "Church of the firstborn" Heb. 12:22' it is not the church of Christ ( Romans 16:16). If is a "house of lies" instead of the "pillar and ground of the truth" ( 1 Tim.3:15) then it is not the family of God and it is a human organization following their own way instead of God's truth. it is not a part of the spiritual organism which is the very body of Christ and family of God of which there is only one. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling" ( Eph. 4:4). For there is "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism". (Eph.4:5)Now Connie, if you have not obeyed that One Lord, by following that "one faith" and submitted to that " one baptism" you are not in that one body of Christ which is the family of God. that is simple. Anything outside of that body is not acceptable to God whether they are denominational or not. This is the reason that you have "interdenominational groups and nondenominational groups" but none of those are following the truth. We are advocating a return to the New Christianity as it was originally when the Church was guided directly by the Holy Spirit in to all the truth through the Holy Spirit in the apostles. Ask yourself, was Paul, Peter, James, John and Luke et al Baptist? Were they Methodist? Were they Presbyterians? We they Roman Catholics? Were they anything other than the family of God? Were they anything other than the body of Christ? Were they anything other then Christians and disciples of Christ? Did they belong to anyone other then Christ. Was Christ crucified for them and were they baptized by any other name than the name of Christ. In fact the only way to avoid being in a "denomination" is to be simply a Christian and nothing else. If you are claiming to be a member of anything other than that body described in the New Testament the fact that you claim to be non denominational is meaningless. There are many groups that claim this false nondenominational status. But we claim to be Christians only. And we do not pretend that any who has not been obedient to the gospel of Christ are Christians. But we freely admit that they may be thousands who have been obedient to the gospel of Christ who have never heard and may never hear of us in their lifetime. But there are NONE that are Christians in this world who have not heard the gospel of Christ and been obedient to it. But you are not among those Connie for you have not been obedient to the gospel of Christ.

That will become very clear to you when you have the courage to tell us just which command of God you atually were being obedient to when you were immersed?

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Lee:

Who is Jesus Christ to you? What did He do for you?

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2000

Also, Nate Graham:

I sincerely appreciate the explanation about page numbers. Now I know, along with information I got from my friend who teaches at our community college, why some things I have tried to send to others and to the technology thread did not work.

So, from now on, I will give the date I'm referring to; that is truly helpful information.

I must confess that in 1995, when I took a 'Word for Windows' course at LCC, I didn't know how to turn one on, when the Instructor said 'Boot Up'. I didn't want to be the last person in the world to know how to use a computer. I've since had WP, but neither Word nor WP is loaded on my computer, only Works. I'm going to get one of those, though. Which do you think is the better program?

And while I had lessons on the various aspects of computer use, I did those lessons once or twice in the lab, handed them in, and haven't used those skills until recently. So I've forgotten the applications, in some cases. (I'm playing the 'age card' here ~ ;-) ;-) )

Also, I went to the lab to use their computers until December 31, 1998, so started using one at home in January 1999, after my son and daughter put everything together. So, I'm a baby at computer stuff.

But I'm a willing learner. So anytime you notice that I need some help, I'd appreciate your speaking up. Thank you! It's like a cup of cold water in Jesus' Name.

And Lee:

I would never become bitter about anything, That is why I rarely let the sun go down on my anger. I don't want to give Satan a toehold.

In the All-Sufficient Sacrifice on the Cross of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

Lee,

Thank you for your kind words. As always I enjoy your posts. I have learned a lot from you and I just don't see how people can argue with your logic. Well, I guess they can't argue with your logic that is why they are resorting to attacking you! In fact, I said the same thing to Danny today and how much I have learned from him over the years. I have learned a lot from this forum,(which includes you)on logical debate, so thanks to Duane too for this forum. It is sort of a practice ground for me. We will encounter all kinds in our life and we need to know how to "give an answer for our faith."

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

Lee, Almost forgot...I was serious about dinner too! Just say when!

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

You see how much trouble you create by insisting that the literal act of immersion baptism is what saves?

Baptism is a sign and a seal, of "the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matt. 26:28 Which is it, the blood of Christ, or the water of baptism, which actually does the saving of sinners?

And, "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:4-7. Baptism is a sign and seal, symbolic of the work of God who saves us, by the blood of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is also symbolic of the death of Christ, according to Romans 6:3-4. It is that death that saves us, not the symbol that represents it.

The symbolism of circumcision and baptism are explained again in Colossians 2:11-12, in which we are understood to be circumcised "by Christ" through his death, and that is directly correlated with baptism and the fact that it represents his death and resurection. We are not saved by these acts, but by the finished work of Jesus Christ they represent.

Romans 8:12-18 is clearly about what it means to be the adopted children of God, "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." It does not say only those who agree with you about immersion baptism. But I suppose you will say only those led to immersion baptism are led by the Spirit of God. I don't expect to convince you, but only to identify another interpretation consistent with the Word of God.

You use Acts 2:38, when Peter was asked "What shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."" You seem to ignore the fact that throughout the Bible, a sinner that repents and asks forgiveness is forgiven by God. What is more important, the repentance, or the baptism? And which saves us from our sins?

As an aside, this started as a thread about predestination, and verse 39 is clear that, "the promise is for us and our children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call." The Holy Spirit is promised to ALL whom God will call.

You begin with a wrong premis, in thinking that the act of baptism itself is saving sinners. Baptism does not save, but what it is representative of does. Just as bread and wine (or grape juice) represent the body and blood of Christ in Communion; baptism represents the blood, death, and resurection of Christ. And as a representation, a sign, a seal, and a remembrance; the act does not save, and the mode does not make it "invalid" as stated in one of the above posts.

I fully agree baptism and communion are commands of God, but the command need not necessarily require immersion, just as it does not necessarily mean wine in communion. Both are for believers, and by that I mean those who have been called by God to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. In our fallen condition, we are not expected to obey God's commands perfectly, or immediately.

The thief on the cross was NOT under the old covenant, or he would be condemned under the old law. He was saved under the new conanent in Jesus blood by grace through faith, and not through baptism. In the same way in the military, a foxhole conversion to saving faith is not invalid because it happens in the desert in Saudi Arabia; and that faith will save one who dies before they have the opportunity to be obedient to the command to be baptized, or if the mode of the sign, seal, and remembrance of baptism is pouring or sprinkling from a canteen instead of immersion. When you understand it is a symbolic act, the symbol takes its proper place.

Are you all crazy, to believe that God would allow any human act to come between the finished work of Jesus Christ and those He has called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith?

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

dbvz,

As to your statement of: "The thief on the cross was NOT under the old covenant, or he would be condemned under the old law."

Heb 9:15-17 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Of course the thief lived under the Old Covenant, Jesus had not died yet.

You also say..."Are you all crazy, to believe that God would allow any human act to come between the finished work of Jesus Christ and those He has called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith?"

Now where did you ever get the idea that baptism was a human act? I have not seen ANYWHERE IN THE WORD where man made up baptism. This idea originated purely in the mind of God!

Mark 16:15-16 - He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

You have to look at ALL of the different kinds of baptism mentioned in Scripture. Perhaps the Greek and Aramaic scholars on this forum can help us. We don't need scholars to tell us the simple message of the Gospel ~ the simplest, poorest, least intelligent person can understand it.

It is, however, also profound enough for the most intelligent to be humbled and enthralled. There is nothing wrong with getting the most accurate information available, and scholars have access to that information.

There must be some reason that the Scriptures say to study ...to show, etc., etc. And of course we need faithful men to preach it, because unless people hear it, they will never believe it. They may never believe it if they hear it!

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

Have I now been "Saffolded"?

I was not going to respond to Lee's missive criticising me. (I have no idea how he will feel about me calling it "criticism"; whether he would call it that or not, that's how it felt.) I think it is wrong for us to be fighting among ourselves over side issues at the expense of the more important debate. However, after thinking about it at odd moments Saturday night and all day Sunday, I've decided I should say something, not to defend myself, but to explain why I continue to prefer the approach I have used. (BTW, I don't know what date will be shown at the bottom of this message, but it it now Monday morning, March 20, here in Hong Kong. Also BTW, I haven't looked at the forum since Saturday evening, H.K. time -- Sat. a.m. in the States -- so what I'm saying is in response to the state of affairs at that time.)

Most people, when they FEEL they have been criticised or "attacked", will react to "protect" themselves in some way. They may retreat -- not giving in, but going away. They may try to "defend" themselves in some way. They may "counter-attack". (It doesn't matter much whether what was said was intended as criticism or not -- if they PERCEIVE it as criticism, that's how they will react. Danny's reaction to my quite innocent remarks, mentioning his name, in connection with the brother/sister issue, are a good example.) The stronger they PERCEIVE the criticism to have been, the stronger the reaction (whichever form it takes); the stronger the reaction, the more "closed" they are likely to be toward future relations toward the person or the "side" that they FEEL "attacked" or criticised them.

I think my own reactions toward Lee and what he has said to me, and his reactions toward me and what I've said, are another example of this. I made a suggestion that I thought would help improve the level of understanding in this thread. (In retrospect, if we were back at that position again, I think I would have made much the same suggestion, but probably would have tried to put it more tactfully.) He felt I had mis-interpreted him, and I think felt he had been criticised and/or "attacked". He defended his position. I defended what I had said. He again defended his position and further criticised mine. I am TRYING not to respond in kind. I hope I'm successful. I TRY (not always as successfully as I would like) to apply the wisdom of Proverbs 15:1, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

With regard to what approach is best in discussions with Connie and others of the "faith only" persuasion, I am not an expert. I think both approaches can be defended from scriptural precedent. I like to think mine is more like the approach Aquila and Priscilla used with Apollos, Acts 18:24-28, and perhaps also the approach Jesus used with the Samaritan woman.

I have tried a variety of approaches. Years ago my approach used to be more like Lee's is now. However, years of dealing with people of all kinds of beliefs, including others with views like Connie's, have taught me that my current approach is more effective -- at least for me.

I won't claim to have changed the mind of every person I have discussed this subject with, but in all but a few cases the exchange has ended with the person conceding that I am not a heretic and that I MIGHT possibly be correct in my beliefs (even if the person him/herself isn't yet quite convinced), and with the person open to considering the matter further.

The first part of that -- that I am not a heretic myself -- is important. How willing are you, Lee and Danny, to even LISTEN to a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness? Probably not at all, because you are already convinced that they are heretics. Many "faith only" people won't even listen to us, because they already have the preconception that we teach "baptismal regeneration" and/or "salvation by works". Hammering away at them that "you are not saved" seldom breaks through that barrier. What usually does is acknowledging the beliefs you have in common (the basic core of beliefs about who Jesus is and what he has done for us is usually almost identical), and acknowledging that you are BOTH seeking to follow and obey Jesus Christ to the best of your own knowledge and understanding.

If you can get them to accept you on that basis, and they believe that you also accept that they are honestly and sincerely following Christ to the best of their present understanding, then you can go on to explain just how your beliefs fit in with theirs, and where you think theirs are in error -- where they need to change their convictions and/or actions to follow Biblical teachings more fully or accurately.

Even when I personally am not able to get them to go further than that, I count it as a success if they have gone that far. I am not so proud as to believe that I am the only person God will ever use to talk to them. I believe that God can continue to work on them through His Word and through the Holy Spirit and through bringing other people into their lives to help them to even greater understanding.

In fact, in many cases, even when they haven't yet changed their minds through talking to me, I have been able to get them to go at least one step further and agree to think about it further and to pray about it. If they will agree to this, I think the possibility is strong that someday somewhere God will bring someone else into their lives to take them the rest of the way.

I said earlier that "... in all but a few cases the exchange has ended with the person conceding that I am not a heretic and that I MIGHT possibly be correct in my beliefs, ... and with the person open to considering the matter further." The cases where I have had the least success in this is where the person has known someone close to them -- a brother, a cousin, a friend -- who has treated them in the way that Lee has been treating Connie. I have found that people who have had experiences like this are usually TOTALLY closed, consider me as being somewhere on the level of a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, and will not give me a hearing at all.

Regarding what I have said about "for the remission of sins" being part of the promise and not necessarily part of the commandment, and about it not being necessary to understand ALL of the purposes of immersion for it to be valid -- that part of what I said was not really addressed to Connie or Barry (if he's still around), but to the rest of you who share my beliefs that immersion is a pre-requisite for the remission of sins and hence salvation. (By the way, this particular aspect of the question -- whether "the remission of sins" is part of the promise or part of the commandment -- is not original with me. You can find the article by Cecil Hook, which I got it from, on the "net" at http://www.freedomsring.org/rebaptis.html. I would recommend reading it.)

For clarification, Danny, I never said or implied that what a person believes or doesn't believe ABOUT JESUS is not important -- only that what he/she believes ABOUT THE PURPOSES OF BAPTISM is not the most important factor and *may* not make a difference, in God's eyes, as to whether or not the person's baptism is "valid."

Do I regret that I posted this in a place where Connie and Barry could see it? do I think there is a danger that it will make them feel "secure" in their present position and that it is unnecessary or irrelevant for them to change their views. I don't know. I see that as a *theoretical* danger, but I have found that most people I have talked to appreciate me being completely honest about all aspects of the situation and leaving it up to their honesty and sincerity to decide for themselves, rather than me making the judgement and trying to force it down their throats. And I have known people to come to the conclusion themselves that they did need to be immersed "for the remission of sins" once they had studied it out, and thought seriously, themselves, about their motives for their earlier "baptism" and what it meant to them.

For Christ and his Kingdom,

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

D. Lee Muse:

1. I did not say baptism was an invention of man. What I said was your interpretation of baptism would put it between the finished work of Christ, and those called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith. The will of man could thwart the will of God. Impossible.

2. Jesus told the thief he would be in paradise "today". By all accounts it was unusual for Jesus to die as quickly as he did. The thief could not have been saved from his sins under the old law, by the simple confession of faith he gave on the cross. But by grace he was brought to faith, and Christ was on the cross next to him! You must be willfully deluding yourself to believe he died under the old law. Conclusion: Jesus died before the thief, and the thief died under the new covenant saved by grace through faith. No other conclusion fits the facts as presented in the Bible.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

I have now read everything between the last time I had looked at the forum, on Saturday, and the time I posted my last response -- though I haven't looked at anything that may have come in since then.

A couple of quick comments.

I thought that was a good point you made, Nate. I see that Connie acknowledged the explanation about the page numbers. I hope she -- and others -- also understood the application you made from that to spiritual things.

To the rest of you -- what's wrong with a little flexibility in approach and in trying to find some common ground with the people you are discussing the gospel with in order to be better able to get them to understand what you are trying to present? The apostle Paul apparently believed in it.

See I Cor. 9:19-23 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews, I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

That, Brother Saffold, is what I TRY to do both with Connie and with the ones I work with and try to reach here in Hong Kong -- the ones you expressed such concern for in one of your previous criticisms of me. I do not compromise the truth, but I do try to find common ground with anyone I discuss these things with, in order to find ways to help them understand "so that by all possible means I might save some."

Yours for "cross-cultural" ministries, wherever they may occur,

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Connie, "dbvz", and Barry (if you are still "with us"),

Saturday night I ran across an interesting parallel.

In Matthew 26:28, Jesus, at the Last Supper, says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Would you agree that this passage means that the PURPOSE of Jesus' blood being poured out was so that our sins could be forgiven?

That phrase, "for the forgiveness of sins", in Greek is EIS APHESIN HAMARTION -- literally, "into/for - to take away - sins".

Acts 2:38 uses almost the identical phrase. It says we are to repent and be baptised, EIS APHESIN TON HAMARTION HUMON. The TON is a definite article, like "the", and HUMON means "your", so adding these two words makes it even more specific -- we are to repent and be baptised, literally "into/for - to take away - the - sins - of you!"

When the two passages are so nearly identical, how can anyone say that in the one passage it Jesus' blood was given so that our sins could be forgiven, but that in the other our baptism has nothing to do with our sins being forgiven?!?

Belief STARTS in the heart and mind, but it is NOT "the faith that saves" until the human will has been surrendered, and to test whether or not our will is surrendered to Him, Christ prescribed the simple symbolic act of allowing ourselves to be immersed in water.

Christ gave his blood EIS APHESIN HAMARTION; and we are to be immersed in water into him EIS APHESIN HAMARTION. The words are the same; the result is the same.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Benjamin, I am reminded of 2John 10-11 "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." Paul knew when it was time to move on, when he was fighting an uphill battle, when to shake the dust off his feet. In 1Tim 1:20 he even handed two men over to Satan when they had rejected the faith. Sounds like pretty tough talk to me. Paul wasn't the only one either. What I see happening here and with out this forum as well, is that Satan uses these diversionary tactics to keep you from talking to people who are willing to hear the gospel, the rest of the time, people like Lee and Danny, are having to defend their actions, again to keep them from spreading the truth. From what I can see Lee and Danny are no different than the tough talk that Paul and others of the NT used when necessary, to fight false doctrine. I think Paul and the others of the NT would be very discouraged by the sissification (to borrow Roger Chambers, terminology) of the modern church.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Sorry Benjamin...It was John who was talking tough in 2John, my mind had already raced ahead to my reference of Paul in ITim and it appreared as if I had said Paul had written my 2John reference. Sorry for the error.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Jenny,

So who's right? Lee & Danny or Benjamin? Does Paul contradict himself when he becomes all things to all people "to win as many as possible."? ...and then sharply rebukes and "shakes the dust from his feet"? Or does he strike a balance?

It seems to me that some may see the "sharply rebuking" as an attribute that fits with their "Prophet" personality easily and so they clothe themselves in it only to become hard to listen to or reason with, while others take on the "loving spirit" which fits so well with their benevolent/mercy personality that they would include anyone walking near a Bible into the Kingdom of God.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

Balance!!! We talked about this in the "Abstanance" thread... how much wine is too much? When does one become a drunkard?

If you've ever heard the "velvet-gloved steel hand" analogy THAT might be the way to go. Even "tough-love" situations contain a little of both that even the outsider looking in can see the necesity for both.

I realize that we are polarized on this issue... but that is the problem... pendulum swings. Every one likes black and white situations, that way there is no personal risk involved in choosing one side only to find out that you were wrong and must recant. But the problem with that is that when you are wrong in black/white situations you have to give up all that much more.... and THAT is hard to do! Just ask me! But grey areas aren't safe grounds either, so where's the balance?

I dunno, this is just thinking out loud... once again, the crazy man speaks! What do YOU think?

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

By the way Jenny...

I appreciate you and your posts. I can see that Danny has a good wife in you and from your other posts, I can tell you are a loving, caring mother as well! And anyone who can clean and cook what Danny kills and brings home is ok in my book! :-D I saw some Flying Foxes on my project to Queensland, Australia in '98 that might look good on a spit, you game?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

dbvz,

You said: "Are you all crazy, to believe that God would allow any human act to come between the finished work of Jesus Christ and those He has called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith?"

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 19, 2000.

Then you say:

"D. Lee Muse: 1. I did not say baptism was an invention of man. What I said was your interpretation of baptism would put it between the finished work of Christ, and those called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith. The will of man could thwart the will of God. Impossible."

Did you not say, "ANY HUMAN ACT" referring to baptism? Where do you get that baptism is a "human act"?

Col 2:11-12, "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but DONE BY CHRIST.

Baptism is not a human act or work here. The one being baptized is not doing a work. When was the last time you saw someone being buried and then considered that they had done any work? Even in the case of one being buried and raised again... would you consider that Lazarus who was dead, buried, and raised had done any work?

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

I find it fascinating, that Jesus commanded baptism, in fact said, "Go into all the world and make disciples, [how?] baptizing them and teaching them to obey ..." [notice he didn't say it the other way around? Teaching them to obey, one of those things being baptism?] ... Peter at the first sermon at Pentecost implored the people to be baptized ... every conversion in the book of Acts has an immediate baptism ... yet so many people balk at it. Whassup with that?

Benjamin;

I can see we are of kindred spirits. I would like to visit you in Hong Kong some day (assuming the Chinese don't start persecuting people there -- I'm not into bamboo-shoot manicures).

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Good points, Dee ... I like the burial analogy.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Nate...I don't think balance is the word I would use. I think you have to ask yourself. "What is the circumstance and when is it time to rebuke?" In this case it is false doctrine. Now I understand that people can believe false doctrine simply because they don't know better but after time and time again of being shown the truth and then they still refuse to change, thats when you need to shake the dust off your feet. It is no longer a matter of ignorance but defiance. In your reference to Paul, I believe he was speaking in matters of opinion not doctrine, nor ridding the church of false doctrine, nor the witnessing to new prospects. Look through the NT and all the places that discuss how to handle false doctrine, dissentions, immorality, etc. and look at how seemingly harsh, by todays standards, we are told to deal with it. I could give you examples all day long. When people refuse to listen to the truth, after having been given ample time and instruction, then it is time to either rebuke, shake the dust off your feet or both. What has been so hard for people to understand is that when you get to the "defiance" stage you are never going to win them no matter how loving you are. When you've hit the defiance stage with that person it then becomes a crusade on their part to spread their false doctrine. So then you know you will never win them but at least you must put a stop to their spreading of this false doctrine in order to keep other people from going to hell. That is why the NT teaches us to deal with certain things rather harshly, to keep the church pure. I've already given you two examples, there's more you can find for yourself. Nate, I don't think personality has a whole lot to do with it either. We are told exactly in the NT how to handle false doctrine and defiant people. BTW...thanks for the kind words as well. Hope this sheds some light on when to rebuke or be the nice guy.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

D. Lee Muse:

Post dated March 20: (after Benjamin Rees' post of the same date.)

RE: Matthew 26 :28:

That is exactly what I HAVE been saying. NOTHING we can do, including baptism ~ NOTHING but His shed blood for my sins will save me. And has, from the moment I believed.

Hi, John and Benjamin!

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Dbvz:

You have said:

You see how much trouble you create by insisting that the literal act of immersion baptism is what saves?

Now just think about that for a moment. No one in this forum has ever said that Baptism the literal act of immersion is the only thing that saves us. What we have said was also said by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21,  The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth ALSO now save us. I suppose you really mean that Peter caused so much trouble by recording those words that the Holy Spirit had him to write. I suppose that you also consider our Lord Jesus Christ himself as a trouble maker when he said,  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that beliveth not shall be condemned. Mark 16:16. I suppose that you think that Ananias caused so much trouble when he said to Saul.  And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16). And there is no doubt that Phillip was a trouble Maker as well because when he preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch he preached baptism. (Acts 8:35-40). In fact all we are told in that account concerning what Phillip is that Phillip,  Began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. When the eunuch heard Phillip preach Jesus the first thing he said when they came near water was see, here is water, what doeth hinder me to be baptized? He did not say, Phillip, see how much trouble you cause when you preach baptism in connection with Jesus. If Phillip had preached Jesus and avoided the possibility of causing so much trouble by teaching baptism, the eunuch could have driven his chariot into the water and it would have never entered his mind that he needed to be baptized. If he had preached salvation by faith Alone as you and Connie would have us believe, there would have been no mention of water at all. If you read all of the accounts of Conversion in the book of Acts you will notice that everyone who preached the gospel urged their hearers to be baptized and those who were converted were baptized. Is this because the apostles were trying to cause trouble? The answer is obvious, isnt it? The reason that preaching baptism in connection with preaching Christ did not cause trouble in those days was because their was no one at that time teaching the false doctrine of Salvation by faith ALONE as you and Connie have been teaching. You see those who first received the gospel did not have any false doctrine such as FAITH ONLY in their minds and therefore the subject of baptism did not incite them to anger like it does you and Connie. The trouble is not caused by the teaching of the truth as stated by our Lord, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: (Mark 16:16). It is caused by the rebellious spirit of those who refuse to turn from their false doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. They refuse to turn from this doctrine even though they have been asked numerous times to give just ONE PASSAGE in the word of God that teaches such a doctrine and they have failed to find one. I repeat they have not found ONE single passage that teaches such a thing. Yet they insist upon having it their way instead of accepting the will and word of God on the matter. The trouble has also been continued and fueled by the spirit of COMPROMISE among those who are so afraid that the false teachers will be offended. Now these things have caused the trouble. The teaching of the simple truth that we are to repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) has not caused the trouble. You do not like these verses and you cannot bear the idea that the scriptures do not teach that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE and it upsets you and others who hold to that pernicious doctrine. Now that is where the trouble really lies. If you were willing to obey God in anything that he says there would be no trouble in this matter. But so long as you and others are stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears (Acts 7:59) and resist the Holy Spirits teaching in His word there will be trouble. And no matter how much some would want to compromise, the trouble will remain for the spirit of Compromise is worse than rebellion!

Then you tell us that baptism is a sign and seal with these words:

Baptism is a sign and a seal, of "the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matt. 26:28 Which is it, the blood of Christ, or the water of baptism, which actually does the saving of sinners?

Now there you go causing trouble with false doctrine contrary to the word of God. It is the Blood of Christ that saves us when we are baptised for it is in baptism that the "circumcision of Chist" where he removes or sins from us by the "circumcision no made with hands" but by His precious blood takes place. (Col2:11,12).

Now I suppose that you will wait a while and come back and accuse us of causing trouble again but I want you to notice that there is not one passage in the entire word of God that says baptism is a sign and seal of anything whatsoever much less the blood of the covenant. Now dbvz, it is easy to assert something as if it were the truth but it is another thing altogether to PROVE it to be the truth. Now we accept only the word of God as evidence to prove something to be true. So I ask you to find ONE SINGLE PASSAGE that says baptism is a sign and seal of the blood of the covenant as you have falsely claimed. Now I ask everyone in the forum to watch for your answer to that question. I can assure everyone that you and Connie will treat this question the same way that you have treated the question concerning your false doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. You will just ignore it because you cannot answer it. This phrase that baptism is a sign and seal is not new to us, dbvz. We have heard it often but the one thing we have never see or hear is the PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE that says, Baptism is a sign and seal. Do you know why we have never heard such a passages? BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE! PERIOD. But you want us to believe it just because you say it is true. Now I expect brother Ben will come in here and chastise me for being so rude as to point out that you are teaching things that you cannot prove to be true by the word of God. The truth is that no one could be more rude, calloused, and hateful than the person who teaching doctrines that he knows he cannot prove to be the truth in the word of God. Now come back in here, dbvz, and show us where the scriptures say that baptism is a seal and sign of the covenant. Then you admit that baptism is involved in our salvation by quoting this verse:

And, "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:4-7. Baptism is a sign and seal, symbolic of the work of God who saves us, by the blood of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Notice that this verse says, He SAVED us through the WASHING OF REBIRTH and renewal by the Holy Spirit". Now you admit that this washing of rebirth is referring to baptism but you try to nullify the fact that this very verse that you quote says He saved us by washing of rebirth by saying that baptism is a sign and seal, SYMBOLIC of the work of God who saves us, by the blood of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy spirit. Now dbvz, this verse does not say that baptism is a seal and sign now does it? You are saying that. This verse says, "HE SAVED US BY THE WASHING OF REBIRTH and renewal by the Holy Spirit. But you say it is a sign and seal and that it is symbolic of the work of God. But this verse does not say any such thing, now does it. So you have read one of the very passages that says very plainly that He saved us by washing of rebirth which you admit is talking about baptism but then you try to tell us that baptism has NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR SALVATION. Now it is obvious that Paul did not CHOKE when he said He saved us by washing of rebirth He did not feel any need to tell us that this washing of rebirth is just a seal and sign symbolizing Gods work. But you were afraid that someone might read this verse that you quoted and get the idea that Paul really meant what he said when he said concerning baptism that He saved us by the washing of rebirth. You were afraid that they might correctly connect baptism and salvation as this verse so clearly does that you needed to explain it away by saying that baptism is a seal and sign of something symbolic. But the scriptures do not say such a thing. Those are your words and you cannot find one passage that says baptism is a seal and sign but you want us to believe your word over Gods word. Now that is what causes trouble around here, dbvz. For we will obey God and we will not allow lies to be taught in the name of Christ.

Then you tell us that baptism is symbolic of the death of Christ with these words:

Baptism is also symbolic of the death of Christ, according to Romans 6:3-4. It is that death that saves us, not the symbol that represents it.

Now this verse in Romans does not say that baptism is symbolic of the death of Christ. It says, therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of Life. It does not say we are symbolically" buried with Christ It says we ARE buried with Christ by baptism. It is an actual fact, according to this verse, that we are buried with Christ in baptism. It is also an actual fact that we are raised to walk in newness of life. It is good to notice just here that we rise to walk in a new life. We do not have newness of life until we are actually buried with Christ and raised from that watery grave to walk in a new life. But according to you and Connie you already have a new Life before you bury the old one!

Then you tell us that the symbolism of Circumcision and baptism are explained in Col. 2:11,12 with these words:

The symbolism of circumcision and baptism are explained again in Colossians 2:11-12, in which we are understood to be circumcised "by Christ" through his death, and that is directly correlated with baptism and the fact that it represents his death and resurrection. We are not saved by these acts, but by the finished work of Jesus Christ they represent.

Now lets read this verse, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism, wherein e also are raised with him through faith in the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."(Col2:11,12).

Now verse 13 explains what Paul said in the above verses. And you being dead in your sins and the circumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, HAVINg FORGIVEN ALL YOUR TRESPASSES." (Col.2:13). Now this verse is using Circumcision as an illustration of the removal of our sins. It does not anywhere compare circumcision to baptism. The circumcision made without hands is God removing our sins. Just as the flesh of the foreskin of Jewish males was removed on the eighth day after their birth in like manner Christ removes the sins of the flesh from our souls when we are buried with him in baptism. So the circumcision does not refer symbolically or otherwise to baptism it refers to the actual forgiveness of our sins by Christ. This is the operation of God that takes place in baptism through faith. In fact this very verse makes it abundantly clear that the circumcision of Christ is the removal of our sins from the soul and that this happens to us when we are buried with him in baptism. This verse, dbvz, is conclusive proof that our sins are actually removed by Christ WHEN we are buried with him in baptism.

But this verse says nothing about anything being symbolic or a sign or a seal. It refers to the actual removal of our sins and calls it the circumcision of Christ. But it nowhere says that baptism is compared to circumcision. The removal of our sins by Christ, which this verse says happens to us when we are buried with him in baptism, is called the circumcision of Christ. Now that is the truth of the matter. What more proof do you need that Christ removes our sins WHEN we are buried with Him in baptism? Then you tell us: Romans 8:12-18 is clearly about what it means to be the adopted children of God, "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." It does not say only those who agree with you about immersion baptism. But I suppose you will say only those led to immersion baptism are led by the Spirit of God. I don't expect to convince you, but only to identify another interpretation consistent with the Word of God.

Now dbvz, Your interpretation is not consistant with the word of God at all. We are told in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now we receive the Holy Spirit after we obey God by repenting and being baptized. Peter said,  We are witnesses of these things and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God hath given to them that obey him. Acts 5:32. So the Holy Spirit is not given to us until we obey him by repenting and being baptized. Until you have done these things you will not be led by the spirit of God and thus you will not be a Son of God. Now that is the truth. Now we are not trying to get you to agree with us about anything. I could care less if anyone agrees with me but we are trying to get you to agree with Christ in His revealed word. For he said,  he that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The words that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48). These are the words that we want you to agree with. We do not seek that you agree with us. We seek that we all agree with Christ our Lord.

Then you accuse us of misusing Acts 2:38 with these words:

You use Acts 2:38, when Peter was asked, "What shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."" You seem to ignore the fact that throughout the Bible, a sinner that repents and asks forgiveness is forgiven by God. What is more important, the repentance, or the baptism? And which saves us from our sins?

You say, a sinner that repents and ask for forgiveness is forgiven. Peter says that a sinner that repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is forgiven. Who shall we believe? You see even though one repents, according to you, he must also ask for forgiveness in order to be forgiven. But Peter says that if one repents and is baptized he will be forgiven. Now the Holy Spirit inspired Peter. He knew what he was talking about. What if a sinner repented but did not ask for forgiveness would he be forgiven according to your plan? According to Peter he must repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38). Now you prefer your way but Gods way is repent and be baptized. Your way is repent and ask forgiveness. Who should you follow the apostle Peter, who spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit or dbvz, who speaks from the imaginations of his deluded heart? The answer is clear for all who love God, now isnt it? You asked which is more important, the repentance or the baptism? Ha! Who told you that either of them MUST be more important that the other? That is like asking which of Gods commands are more important than another of Gods commands. We are told to Love and we are told to speak the truth. Which is more important than the other, love or the truth that you do in fact Love? The fact is that all of Gods commands are important and none of them are more important than the others. The fact is that according to Acts 2:38 repentance is just as important as baptism and baptism is just as important as repentance. Those who asked, "What shall we do" were told to do both without any discussion whatsoever that one was more important than the other. And they did not quibble about it as you and Connie do for we are told, and  Then they that received his word were BAPTIZED and there were added to them on that day 3,000 souls. Notice it does not say and they that received his word repented though we know that since his words included repentance that they did that too. But if Luke, who was inspired of God to write the book of Acts, were thinking like you, dbvz, he would have said, then they that received his word repented because that was more important than baptism. But it did not say that now did it, dbvz?

Then you act as if you want to take us aside with these words:

As an aside, this started as a thread about predestination, and verse 39 is clear that, "the promise is for us and our children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call." The Holy Spirit is promised to ALL whom God will call.

Well that is just more nonsense that you cannot prove by the scriptures and it is off the subject. Now this verse is not disconnected from verse 38 that says repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Therefore verse 39 is telling them that this promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit which he had just promised those who repent and are baptized is for EVERY person who does the same thing that he had just commanded them to do. Those who repent and are baptized shall receive the Holy Spirit. But you will notice if you will read,  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior who would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Tim.2: 4). Notice also that we are called by the gospel,  But we are bound to thanks always to God for, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning Chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and BELIEF OF THE TRUTH: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Thess2: 12,13).

Then you make another assertion that you cannot prove with these words:

You begin with a wrong premis, in thinking that the act of baptism itself is saving sinners. Baptism does not save, but what it is representative of does. Just as bread and wine (or grape juice) represent the body and blood of Christ in Communion; baptism represents the blood, death, and resurection of Christ. And as a representation, a sign, a seal, and a remembrance; the act does not save, and the mode does not make it "invalid" as stated in one of the above posts.

Now you say that we begin with the wrong premise and then you state that premise which is not our premise at all. You claim that the wrong premise that we begin with is that baptism itself is saving sinners. Now we have never said any such thing and you know it! We have never disconnected baptism from faith and repentance and most of all we have never disconnected it from Christ our Lord and the operation of God (Col.2: 11,12) on our hearts and souls in it. Now you are being deliberately deceptive by falsely accusing us of starting with a premise like this. Even Peter said, The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth ALSO now save us (1Peter3: 21). Now notice that we have quoted this passage to you several times before and notice that it says baptism doeth ALSO now save us. It does not say that baptism ITSELF saves us. Now you cannot show us one place where we have argued that baptism ITSELF apart from faith in Christ and repentance of our sins saves anyone.

On the other hand you and Connie are the ones who teach that FAITH ITSELF saves us. According to you we are saved by faith ALONE. Now repentance is not even necessary according to your theory of salvation by faith ALONE. WE are saved, according to you and Connie, by FAITH ONLY. Now the fact that the scripture plainly says, Ye see then how that by works (Acts that proceed form and are produced by faith) a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY (James 2:24) does not phase you though it is diametrically opposed to your faith only doctrine. Then, with a very high degree of ignorance, you say:

I fully agree baptism and communion are commands of God, but the command need not necessarily require immersion, just as it does not necessarily mean wine in communion. Both are for believers, and by that I mean those who have been called by God to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. In our fallen condition, we are not expected to obey God's commands perfectly, or immediately.

Now I want everyone to notice that you said "In our fallen condition we are NOT EXPECTED TO OBEY GOD"S COMMANDS PERFECTLY OR IMMEDIATELY". Now where is the proof from God's word that such is the truth? Dbvz does not tell us! Peter expected those on the day of Pentecost to perfectly obey the command to "repent and be baptized and 3,000 people did so. (Acts2:38). But dbvz says we do not have to do it and we are expected to believe it simply because dbvz says so. He does not offer any words from God to prove it. For one that claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit he really does not know how to give evidence for his claims, does he?

It is not your agreement that baptism is a command of God that we are concerned with, dbvz, it is the but and the only that we are concerned with. You say God commands it BUT. If God commands something, dbvz, there are no BUTS about it. God says it and we obey it. Anything less that this is unfaithfulness. Then you say, Baptism does not necessarily require immersion. By this statement you betray your ignorance of the meaning of the term baptism in the New Testament. For in the New Testament the English word baptize is an Anglicization of the Greek term baptizo which without exception in New Testament times meant to DIP PLUNGE OR IMMERSE. You can look the word up in any reputable lexicon of your Choice and you will see that it means immersion. But you come in here and tell us that baptism does not necessarily require immersion. Dbvz tells us that even if God said it He does not necessarily require it! Ha! I can just hear Satan saying to our mother, Eve, in the garden, hath God said? Did God really mean it when he said, repent and be baptizo or dipped plunged or immersed? Your words are like saying that dipping does not necessarily require being dipped! How ridiculous! It is like telling someone that though they have been told to dip their spoon in the bowl of soup in order to enjoy its benefits dipping does not "necessarily" require being dipped! It is impossible to dip, dbvz, with out dipping and it is impossible to immerse without immersing. Since the word baptize is from the Greek term baptizo which means to dip, plunge, or immerse, it is also impossible to baptize without immersing. This is what happens when we take a Greek term, like baptizo and anglicize it and give it a meaning and usage very different from the original meaning and use of the Greek word of the first century. By this deceptive tactic may souls will be lost.

Then you want to be saved like the theif on the Cross though you do not know and cannot prove exactly how this was done and if anyone after him was ever saved in the same way with these words:

The thief on the cross was NOT under the old covenant, or he would be condemned under the old law. He was saved under the new covenant in Jesus blood by grace through faith, and not through baptism. In the same way in the military, a foxhole conversion to saving faith is not invalid because it happens in the desert in Saudi Arabia; and that faith will save one who dies before they have the opportunity to be obedient to the command to be baptized, or if the mode of the sign, seal, and remembrance of baptism is pouring or sprinkling from a canteen instead of immersion. When you understand it is a symbolic act, the symbol takes its proper place.

Now all of the above is very nice assertion. Now we ask for the proof. For all that you have said in that paragraph is without any scriptural support. You cannot prove anything you have said about the thief on the Cross. You say he was not baptized but you cannot prove it. You just do not know that it is true, now do you? You assume that he was never baptized but you do not prove it. Then you neglect to notice that he was not under the New Covenant for it did not come of effect until Christ died. (Hebrews 9:17). But Christ was alive when he said, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. So he WAS UNDER THE OLD LAW. Now you need to give proof that he was not living under the old LAW. But you offered no proof. We are expected to believe it just because someone, without a real name, called dbvz said so! Ha!

Now it is down right humorous that you believe that one can be saved like the thief on the cross who did not have a canteen and could not have, according to your theory, any remembrance of baptism actually feels the need to sprinkle or pour from a canteen. Ha! Why not just dispense with the idea altogether for if one is saved by faith only the soldiers could save the water for the living! The truth is that if you are not a Christian when you find yourself in a foxhole you will not suddenly become one just as a mortar round lands on you head! Christianity requires a commitment to Christ that just cannot be made in the last minute and there is no evidence to support the view that the thief on the cross is an exception to that rule. But we can discuss that later for I have to go back to work.

Then you ask if we are crazy with these words:

Are you all crazy, to believe that God would allow any human act to come between the finished work of Jesus Christ and those He has called by the Holy Spirit to a saving faith?

Now you seem to be a little over concerned for our sanity. I suppose that you intend to insult us, and I do not object, but do not come in here after a few weeks and start crying about how unloving we are! OK? This is the tactic used by false teachers. You want to cast out insults when you think you can strongly assert something and then when the going gets rough and you are aware that you are unable to answer the arguments put to you begin to WHINE and CRY and complain that we do not have the fruit of the spirit in our lives because we are so unloving". Do not come in here crying dbvz. We will just tell you, If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Now Brother Benjamin, don't come in here CRYING FOR HIM either.

Then you call baptism a human act. But you do not prove it, do you? It is a place where the human does not act at all but is passively yielding to the circumcision of Christ that Christ performs in baptism. (Col. 2:11,12).

Then you speak of the finished work of Christ. How about showing us the scripture that uses this phrase finished work of Christ? I would like to read it. You speak of it often as if the word of God said such things. Can you show us from the scriptures that he has called us by the Holy Spirit and explain just how the Holy Spirit calls us? You see, dbvz, you talk a lot and prove nothing! Why not come back to this post and give us proof from the word of God for all these wild assertions of yours.

But we are not crazy as you suppose. We are faithful to the word of God.

I do pray for you dbvz, that you will seek the truth and learn to love it above all else. For our Lord said, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32). You Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Connie:

In reference to Matthew 26:28 you said the following:

That is exactly what I HAVE been saying. NOTHING we can do, including baptism ~ NOTHING but His shed blood for my sins will save me. And has, from the moment I believed.

Now you falsely claim that this passage teaches what you have been saying all along. It plainly does not. You have been saying that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. That is what you have been saying all along.

Now lets just put your words side by side with the words of Christ and see if they say the same thing you have been saying all along!

CONNIE SAYS: WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH ALONE

CHRIST SAYS: THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Now any one with a brain can see that the two are not even remotely the same, cant they Connie?

Now you have been completely unable to show us one single passage that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE during this entire discussion. WE have asked you time and again to just give one passage that says such a thing but you still have not found one. What is the matter Connie? You have not found one yet have you? We are still waiting but you just have not said anything about that now have you? You would like for that embarrassment to go away wouldnt you? Are you just too dishonest to at least admit that such a passage is not found in the word of God?

Now do not expect Brother Benjamin to help you with this one Connie. He knows that there is not one single passage in the word of God that teaches we are saved by grace through faith ALONE as you have been teaching. He is too nice and kind to tell you that you have not dealt with this matter at all. But he will not find such a passage for you because he knows also what all of the rest of the people in this forum knows, including you, that there is no scripture in ALL of the BIBLE that teaches we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. You know it to be the truth also but you do not have the courage to admit it, now do you Connie?

Also you have said that we are saved by nothing but the blood of Jesus. Now Matthew 26:28 does not say that we are saved ONLY by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is what saves us but if we do not have faith we cannot reach that blood. For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH. (Eph.2: 8,9). By Gods grace Christ shed His precious blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). And it is through faith that we have access to that blood. Therefore the blood of Christ through faith saves us. If you read Colossians 2:11, 12 you will find that the circumcision of Christ is a phrase that refers to the fact that Christ removes our sins from our souls. You will also find that it is in baptism that Christ performs this circumcision with His blood by our faith in the operation of God. Now read it for yourself and you will see that it is not baptism that is called the circumcision of Christ but rather it is the removal of our sins by the blood of Christ that is called the circumcision of Christ and you will see that Paul said that this circumcision made without hands is done by Christ when we are immersed into him. Read it for yourself. No one will reach the blood of Christ without going to the place where Christ operates to remove the sins of our flesh in the circumcision of Christ which occurs by faith in the operation of God that takes place in baptism. Therefore Baptism is a place where GOD WORKS and MAN YIELDS! That is the simple truth that you are resisting Connie.

You statement concerning being saved by nothing but the blood of Christ contradicts your doctrine of salvation by FAITH ONLY. For if FAITH ALONE saves us then that would leave out the blood of Christ wouldn't it? You are now in the position of telling us that FAITH ALONE saves us and then you tell us NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD saves us. Now which is it Connie? DOES ONLY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SAVE US OR ARE WE SAVED BY OUR FAITH ONLY? For since you have said that we are saved exclusively by faith in one place and then you say we are saved exclusively by the blood of Christ in another place it is impossible that we are saved EXCLUSIVELY BY either of them, now isnt it? Now you can see Connie. We are saved by the blood of Christ but only if we have faith in Christ. Therefore we are not saved by faith ALONE. For faith would be useless to save us if Christ had not shed his blood. We are not saved solely by the blood of Christ for if we do not have faith in Christ and his shed blood it will not save us. The fact is that we are saved by Christ blood (1Peter 1:22). We are saved by Faith (Mark 16:16). Confessing Christ ith our mouth(Romans 10:9,10) we are saved by repentance (Acts 3:19; Acts 17:30; Acts 2:38). We are ALSO saved by baptism. (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts2: 38: Titus 3:3-5). We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2: 8-9). We are saved by obedience to Christ. (Hebrews 5:8,9; Acts 5:32). The list of things that we are saved by in the scriptures is a long one, isnt it?

But you have now told us that we are saved by FAITH ALONE and now in this post you have told us we are saved by nothing but the blood of Christ. If we are saved by any of these two exclusively we cannot be saved by both of them at the same time. For then the blood of Christ and the faith of man would be working together for our salvation and thus it would not be salvation by either of then ALONE. You also said that there is nothing we can do. Now Connie, we can believe cant we? (John 3:16; John1:12). We can repent cant we? (Acts 3:19; Acts2:38; luke 13:3,5). We can confess Christ with our mouth cant we? Romans10:9,10; Matthew 10:32-34). We can be baptized cant we?(Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Axts 22:16).

Connie says, There is nothing we can do.

Christ said through Peter, SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION. ACTS 2:40.

Now whom do we believe, Connie or Christ.

CONNIE SAYS: "THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO"

CHRIST SAYS: HE THAT BELIVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED: Mark 16:16

Connie said, there is nothing we can do but Christ told us that those who DO believe and ARE baptized shall be saved.(Mark 16:16)So whom should we believe?

Now Connie can you find a passage that says we are saved by nothing but the blood? I doubt it. We are saved by the blood of Christ but NOT WITHOUT FAITH IN THAT BLOOD. The phrase nothing but the blood" is found in one of our favorite hymns called nothing but the blood of Jesus. It is true only in the sense that without his blood being shed our faith would not be able to save us. But it does not mean that He will save us by his blood without our having faith in that blood. For without faith it is impossible to please him. (Heb. 11:6). The scriptures nowhere tell us that ONLY the blood of Christ saves us.

Connie I want to remind you that you never did answer the question that I asked you about which command of God did you obey when you were baptized? Are you afraid to tell us? For I can assure you that the moment that you tell us we will be able to demonstrate from that very command and the words you have written in this forum that you did not obey God in baptism. But in order to prove that for all to see we wait for you to tell us which command you claim to have obeyed when you were baptized. Now Connie, when you ignore these things people in this forum notice that you are evading the question.

Then you claim that Christ blood saved you the moment you believed. Was that before you repented of your sins? Jesus made it clear, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish (Luke 13:3,5). Peter said, repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be BLOTTED OUT. (Acts 3:19). So you see if we do not repent our sins will not be blotted out. But Connie was saved the moment she believed" before and without repenting of her sins and thus without her sins being remitted or blotted out. No one who reads the word of God honestly and prayerfully without being prejudiced in favor of his or her denominational and sectarian bias can believe such nonsense.

This list of things that you are evading and avoiding is growing larger and larger Connie.

I do pray for you that you will submit to Christ and stop rebelling against His word and His doctrine. For your very soul is at stake Connie. If I did not care for you I would not waste my valuable time trying to help you understand these things. I would just be a superhero and say the things that you like to hear in the way you like to hear them. But I care too much to do that Connie. I sincerely do.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

D. Lee Muse:

The "human act" of immersion baptism, is in the fact that humans need to get into the water, and humans need to be drawn under the water, and humans need to be brought out of the water. By the fact that you insist humans can refuse to be saved by refusing to be baptized, you assert that salvation is through the human act of participation in immersion baptism, and the human act of administering baptism. You take salvation that is the gift of God, by grace through faith; and make it dependant on an act of man, in the administration of immersion baptism.

I have agreed with all of you several times that baptism is required in obedience to God; but that obedience is the RESULT of salvation, and not the cause of it.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

E. Lee Saffold wrote, "I suppose that you also consider our Lord Jesus Christ himself as a trouble maker when he said,  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that beliveth not shall be condemned. Mark 16:16."

No. But I believe it is significant that the second half of the quote is, "He that believeth not shall be condemned." Saving faith, the free gift of God by grace, is the point of this quote. Baptism is also required of the children of God, but it is not being given a saving faith that will result in condemnation. It does not say, "He that is not baptized shall be condemned", does it?

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

E. Lee Saffold wrote, " If you read all of the accounts of Conversion in the book of Acts you will notice that everyone who preached the gospel urged their hearers to be baptized and those who were converted were baptized."

I have no problem with any of that, as an act of obedience required as the result of salvation. My criticism that you create trouble is not that you preach baptism. Every Christian denomination preaches baptism. It is that you make immersion baptism a human action that is the condition of salvation, rather that the result of salvation. My point was that the Bible teaches that those who WERE converted (saved), were urged to be baptized. Your position seems to be that they WERE NOT converted (saved) UNTIL they were baptized.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

E. Lee Safold wrote, " The teaching of the simple truth that we are to repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) has not caused the trouble. You do not like these verses and you cannot bear the idea that the scriptures do not teach that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE and it upsets you and others who hold to that pernicious doctrine. Now that is where the trouble really lies. If you were willing to obey God in anything that he says there would be no trouble in this matter."

I love that verse in Acts! Based on the whole Word of God it is very clear that "repent" is what leads to forgiveness. "Be baptized" is what is required as obediences, as is obedience to the Law of Love and the 10 Commandments.

The trouble lies in that you force scripture to fit your doctrine, rather than read all of the Bible to inform you of what a verse like this really means.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

It is clear that E. Lee Saffold and I understand the meaning of the Bible very differently. He is convinced he is right, and I am convinced I am right. God only knows. Those in this "movement" take some pride in the fact that you are virtually alone among Christian denominations (and I know you don't want to believe you are a denomination, but you are) in taking the position you do on baptism. The rest of us are all wrong, and just don't understand. But of course, that is not true. E. Lee Saffold interprets scripture to fit his doctrine of baptism, but nearly every Bible scholar throughout history interpreted the same passages differently in light of the whole Word of God.

I am not a Calvin or an Augustine, but they studied the same Bible you do with great care. Where you read that baptism is for the remission of sins, the rest of us understand that it is the suffering and death of Christ that is being symbolized by baptism that is for the remission of sins. You put the symbol in place of the genuine article, and in that you are presenting "another gospel", and not the gospel that rests on the finished work of Christ.

I don't have the time to write the book long posts Saffold writes, but that is the heart of our disagreement. Saffold has the support of the majority on this forum, and I know I will be soundly attacked for what I have written. The majority of Christians rest on Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone. Christianity is not a democracy, and votes don't determine who is right. Your minority status does not make you right either, but it should make you wonder why.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

dbvz:

Preach it! (I agree with you almost 100%.) My reading is that we should be immersed, but because the Greek word 'en' can be either 'in' or 'with', I accept that it can be (for you) sprinkling or pouring.

Of course, I myself would only be immersed. In our church we accept people who give a statement of their faith and encourage baptism. We all grow at different rates.

You probably know ~ are you a pastor? ~ that every instance of baptism in the N.T. was by immersion.

In re-reading this thread, I discovered that John W. was the one with the statements of various men of Faith in history.

John, our pastor who just started a new ministry of Seminars on Christian marriage, was an assistant pastor in John MacArthurs's church (Grace). He was from my hometown of Peoria, Ill.; his mother owned a dance studio before she became a Christian, and was an owner of an exercise studio afterwards when she became a Christian out of her son's ministry. (I didn't know them in Peoria, but my mother taught in his school system.

He was converted at 16 in a military academy in California, and became a devout Christian. He was sent to the military academy for discipline and because he was a handful for mom and dad. A more Godly young man one could not find. He was only 29 when we called him, and while young, had a spiritual maturity beyond his years. And he was teachable.

Grace sent two elders with him from California to Michigan when we called him, so that they could be positive that he was getting into the right and Christian church he thought it was. He willingly submitted to that; in fact he may have requested it. He was our pastor for 19 years.

Our church is very much like Grace. There is a large international class and there is a Chinese Christian church, whose attendees also come to our services, but they use the facilities on Friday evening for their services.

We've had a very strong witness in the community for these 40 + years. The Bible in Technology Class is one which has been meeting since Charles wrote his book ten years ago. Charles now has 3 classes per week.

I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't even know of its existence because at that time, it only met at 9:00 A.M., and from the days when I had 5 young children to get ready for church (my husband would take them and I would go to a later service. We've had three services for many years.)

Many people in our church have taken it, but more have not. When one first hears the message (all firmly scripturally based) one is really taken aback. Some do not believe it, but a prophet is without honor in his own country and in his own land. (As even the Lord's brother James did not believe Him initially.)

The first paragraph of his book states:

'The Bible's unabridged report on today's technology was written in ancient times to the inhabitants of the modern world. It begins with a series of feature-for-feature descriptions of the twentieth century's most distinguished engineering achievments. The startling accuracy and completeness of these writings are thought provoking. And that is precisely what these ancient texts are designed to do - - make people think.

They challenge people to seriously examine what the God of all creation has to say about modern man's inventions, the influence these advances will have on the final destiny of mankind's unguided experiment with modern technology.

Those who find it hard to accept the idea that centuries-old prophecies explain future events in terms of present-day inventions should consider the methods Jesus Christ used to teach spiritual concepts.

Jesus repeatedly selected the familiar earthly objects of that day to better instruct His listeners. During His ministry, Jesus also answered a number of questions about the events leading up to the end of the age.'

Charles Miller spent 23 years (now 33 years) working on the leading edge of the computer field by day and studying Bible prophecy by night. In his studies he discovered that Bible prophecies consistently explain end-time events in terms of modern advances in technology.

He works at Michigan National Bank as a Vice President of Platform Management, so he doesn't need any income for his book, which he sells for $5.00 in class and it costs $5.26 to produce ($10.00 on the 'net.) Shipping is included. He is not trying to make money on his book. He feels a real necessity to get this information out, as i do, for the benefit of Christians in these perilous times.

Perhaps this should have gone on the 'Dragonslayer' thread, but I started it here.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Danny Gabbold,

I finally managed to find the original exchange between us regarding the use of "Brother" and "Sister" in this forum. I see that what I said was more pointed than I remembered it being. I didn't think, and still don't think, that what I said was any more pointed than what you said to me, to which I was responding. But I hadn't meant to offend. My apologies if I did.

Lee Staffold, and Danny & Jenny Gabbold, etc.,

I truly hope -- and pray! -- that none of you are involved or ever get involved in any kind of cross-cultural ministry. I think you would very soon have reason to congratulate yourselves for being "persecuted for righteousness' sake", but I think you would alienate and drive away many more people than you would win.

I think you all know the Scriptures well, and for that I am very glad. But I think you don't understand people very well, especially people who differ at all from you in their thinking. The teachings of the Bible must always come first, but I think your lack of understanding of other people's point of view and of "what makes them tick" causes you to misapply the scriptures -- choosing the wrong set of scriptures to apply to the situation. (Not the wrong scriptures about baptism, but the wrong scriptures and the wrong precedents with regard to how to deal with people with whom you differ.)

I originally got involved in this thread because I thought I could help clarify the issues and help explain to those of the "faith only" persuasion just how it all fit together -- that God could say, on the one hand, that we are saved by his grace and our faith and NOT by works and yet could still require a physical act. Unfortunately, I find that what I have said on that subject seems largely to be being ignored -- by everyone on "both sides".

Instead, some comments I made on the side, suggesting that different tactics might be more effective than those that some were using, have been turned into a major argument that is taking up increasing amounts of time and space. I don't think this is doing anyone any good. I won't go so far as to say I have been "casting pearls before swine" (though I'm tempted), but I do think the time God gives me is too valuable to continue to use in this way. Therefore, brethren (and sister), I yield the floor to you and go elsewhere where the modest talents God has given me may be of better use.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Love One an Other,By knowing you are going to loose.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Something to re-read.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001