I found the thread "Christian Church (a.k.s. The Restration Movement) interesting in two respects. The remarks made and the attitude of the *remarkers.*

ISTM the only way God ever wants His children to discuss His word (with anyone) is with a loving spirit. Even if someone is correct in his doctrine and he continues to run people off (whether at *Church* or in a forum such as this) with an attitude that he has all truth and anyone who disagrees with him is either dishonest or stupid...he cannot be a real Christian, even if he has been baptized for the remission of his sins. (By their fruits you shall know them)-(Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.)

"Love" is lacking in many in the Restoration Movement because they feel smug in their beliefs. How many could we bring to the Lord with a patient, loving attitude? Many are run off this forum because of a few. I hear privately from some about the attitude of the few, saying they don't want to continue to be discouraged.

Now for point two:

We in the Restoration Movement are in Christ...having put Him on through obedience to His word, thus have accessed His grace offered at the cross. However, have we not gone beyond His word by institutionalizing ourselves? Have we not taken many scriptures out of context and, indeed, made a creed as false as those we quickly critizae, because *they* have creeds?

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Answers

I'm still not convinced Connie and Nelta are not the same people.

Hmmmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Nelta:

You have not yet repented of your sins which you have committed in this forum but you have returned to JUDGE, unrighteously I might add, with your following words:

""Love" is lacking in many in the Restoration Movement because they feel smug in their beliefs."

Now you, like most false teachers and false accusers, have made the above assertion without offering any proof whatsoever that it is true. You falsely accused your Brother in Christ, Danny Gabbard, when you accused him of having "something against women" and you offered no proof of that statement either. You even "smuggly" called him a "COWARD" without offering even the slightest effort to prove your FALSE accusations. You have taught that the elders in the Church were nothing more than the "older" Christians. Also without proof. You have claimed that there is "no word for "authority" in the New Testament". You were soundly rebuked by many in this forum for these lies and you were given an abundance of evidence of several words for "authority" in the New Testament. You were asked numerous times to repent of your PUBLIC and FALSE accusation of your brother in Christ when you falsely accused him of "having something against women" and of being a "Coward" but you have yet to repent. I have called upon you numerous times to repent of your LIES. But no repentance. Then you come in here and again without any proof whatosever falsely accuse your brethren in this forum of feeling "smug in their beliefs".

Confident in your beliefs is not being "smug" but falsely accusing your brother in Christ with words that you knew when you said them were nothing short of deliberate lies is worse than being "SMUG". It is a sin against the Lord Jesus Christ of which I once again call upon you to repent.

Now do not try to deny it because I can copy and paste the entire conversations that we had on that subject so that we can go over it again. You have sinned and you are still "stiffnecked and uncircumsized in heart and ears" and you continue to remain impentitent in spirit. You are rebelling against Christ our Lord and I for one continue to urge you to repent because you will face God in the judgement for these evil deeds.

The ones that I see leaving this forum are much like you. They cannot prove their false doctrines by the scriptures and are ashamed when people call upon them to PROVE their false assertions. When they find that they do not have any proof they just run away instead of having the courage to stay and face th truth. Only you are worse than they because you cannot prove you neo orthodox views to be anywhere close to the teaching of the word of God and you know that you LIED when you accused your brother Danny of having something against women in this forum but you continue to refuse to repent.

We have challenged you in every place and you continue to run and hide. You do not respond to our arguments because you have nothing that you can say so you have now limited youself to amature theater and write pathetic little "neo orthodox" plays that do nothing more than judge falsely and harsly critisize the oveerseers in the Church who are faithfully doing their work for Christ. But you want to do nothing but come back into this forum with more LIES.

"All liers shall have their part in the lake of fire". You have LIED about your brother Danny in this forum and have refused to repent of it. I warn you of these things for the judgement day is coming, Nelta. I urge you to repent because you will lose your soul for this impentitent spirit.

The very Idea that you come hear talking about "love is lacking" among those in the restoration movement. Well now if that is true you are the perfect example of it. For you did not show a "loving spirit" toward your Brother Danny when you falsely accused him of "having something agains women" in this forum. And you clearly were not in a "loving spirit" when you called him a "Coward". But you have now returned to instruct us about how to be "loving". You do count on the fact that we have short memories , don't you?

If one needs an example of a lack of a "loving spirit" all they need to do is go read those threads where you falsely accused your Brother Danny Gabbard of "having something against women" and where you "lovingly" called him a "Coward". Yes, Nelta, the love is lacking in the "restoration movement" and you and your "Neo orthodox" liars are a perfect example of it.

Remember, when I call you a LIAR I am not calling you a name I am accusing you of that sin. I have already proven to be a fact. I call you a liar because you have LIED about your brother Danny in this forum and have yet to apologize or repent for this sin which you publicly committed in this forum. I accuse you of being unloving toward him because of this and your false accusation that he was a "coward". Yes , Nelta, you are in the restoration movement and you are "lacking in love for your Brother Danny because of your lies and false accusations against him and you are "lacking in love" for our Lord because you refuse to repent of these evil deeds. So you are correct that love is lacking in the restoration movement. But it is LIARS like yourself that are lacking in love. Those who urge you to repent and strongly rebuke you are doing so out of love for you. I do care that you repent of this evil Nelta because you will lose your soul for these things. You surely will. I again urge you to repent! I admonish you as a brother in Christ to repent!

For the Judge of all the earth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Lee, Nelta will never answer any of your post. THe reason may be the fact she is dead wrong and she knows it. Satan flees when the truth is thrown in his face.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Thank you, Nelta.

I feel a oneness of Spirit with someone whose only desire is to Glorify Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Matthew 22: 36 - 40:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Coonie:

You say:

Thank you, Nelta. I feel a oneness of Spirit with someone whose only desire is to Glorify Christ.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 10, 2000.

Matthew 22: 36 - 40: Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 10, 2000

One does not glorify Christ when one ignores bad doctrine, or when one turns away from honest discussion, or when one refuses to be held accountable for what one says.

I love my son. Therefore, I don't let him play in the street. And I punish him when he tries.

I love my father. Therefore, I rebuke him when he falls into a pattern of willing sinfulness in his life.

Love does not just say, "Well, you think your way and I'll think my way and everybody will be happy."

When Paul found that Peter was being a two-faced hypocrite about associating with Gentile believers, Paul came and openly and forcefully rebuked him to the truth. By the standards you have shown here, that means that Paul didn't love Peter and didn't glorify Christ and should have just kept his mouth shut.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

"Colossians 3

1. Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. 5. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10. and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. 12. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

Not one to want to sound like I am a spineless man or even the new effete... I DO recognize the scripture for what it is. This is just my way of contending (fighting?) for the faith once delivered. Not my statement, just Paul's. Not my words, just God's. ...and I, for one, DO search the scriptures and study ("A workman needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God." -- My first memorized scripture and thus in the KJV)...but am always ready for the Holy Spirit to enlighten me to new meanings as I grow older in understanding through a different light.

This addition to the thread is not meant to attack anyone, nor is it siding with anyone. I wish only to be a voice of reason. Come, let us reason together.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

I'm with you, Nate!

Bleesings

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Oops! Typo. 'Blessings' ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Nate:

You quote a passage that deals with how Christians are to deal with one another but you do not quote the many passages that show us how false teachers were dealt with. You quote a passage that deals with forgiveness and ignore the ones talking about repentance.

Now, I know you were not writing to side with anyone. But you should be standing with the truth to fight against sin. Now Nelta has sinned in this forum by falsely accusing her Brother in Christ, Danny Gabbard, of having something against women. She has falsely accused him of being a Coward. She has taught LIES and refuses to repent of her sins against Brother Danny and to answer the many arguments that have shown her to be in diliberate rebellion against the elders in the Church. Now I have consistently held her accountable for these evil deeds and it is right to do so. And all those who love the truth should stand together against this kind of deliberate rebellion against the truth and all that Gods word says about the elders in the church. I will not repeat what I wrote in my first post but it is clearly the truth. Now all who feel a kinship with this deliberate LIAR who refuses to repent of her false accusations against her brother in Christ are siding with Satan. You cannot stand in two places here Brother Nate. You must chose to get on one side or the other. For this person has sinned and if we care about her soul we will all call upon her to repent of this evil.

Now that it is scriptural and right to talk this way has been shown many times over but I will give the arguments again.

But read these verses from the apostles and see that the great apostle Paul who told us to "speak the truth in Love" ( Eph. 4:15) and wrote the great Chapter on Love ( 1 Corinthians 13) was often very harsh in his rebukes of false teachers. So it is clear that "love" does not insist on an avoidance of strong peircing rebukes when they are needed. The apostle Paul ran into someone who, like Nelta, was also full of deceit and fraud. Notice these words that he spoke to him, "But Saul, who was also {known as} Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?" ( Acts 13:9- 10). Now I can just see our you running in between Paul and this LIAR and waving your hands and saying "Paul, your comments are so unchristian and unloving. Now I do not want to take sides but lets reason together. Paul it does not matter how wrong you think this man is, Christ died for him and we must "speak the truth in love" as even YOU have admonished us to do. " I can only wonder which one Paul would have struck with blindness? "II Peter 2:21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on the them, It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'The dog turns back to its own vomit,' and 'The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.'" Do you think that Brother Peter should have, for we have no record that he did, apologized for his "disposition" in the above passage? Philippians 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! Do you think that Brother Paul should have apologized for referring to these "evil workers" as "dogs"? "Gal. 5:12 I wish that those who unsettle you would mutilate/castrate/emasculate themselves!" Was not this statement extremely harsh? Should Paul have apologized for what he saidDo you think he sould have been more reasonable? Mt. 23:13-14 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Was Christ being unreasonable in this place? Acts 13:9-10 But Saul, who was also {known as} Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?" Paul accused this person of being a "son of the devil" should he have apologized for being so "harsh". Was he "unloving". Was he failing to preach the truth in Love? Did he fail to follow his own words found in 1 Corinthians 13? 1 Tim 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited {and} understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. Was Paul failing to be "kind" and "loving" by saying that these men were of "depraved mind and deprived of the truth"? Was he apparently behaving as if he alone had a "corner on the truth"? Should he have apologized for saying it? Was he being unreasonable. 2 Cor 11:1-15 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you {as} a pure virgin. But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity {of devotion} to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear {this} beautifully. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds. Was Paul again being "caustic" here by calling those who preached another Jesus and a different gospel "deceitful workers" and "servants of Satan"? Titus 1:9-13 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not {teach} for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound inthe faith How about this place where Paul agrees with a Cretan prophet and therefore joined in calling the whole lot of them "liars", evil beast, and gluttons"? Paul, who wrote 1 Corinthians 13, did not see any prohibition to the use of "strong, blunt, severe, and yes harsh words" when the time, place and argument require it. Is it not possible that love itself could motivate such harsh words to come from our Savior's lips and also from His apostles? Enough of these nonsensical, hypocritical uses of the word LOVE as if it means nothing more than making a diligent effort to avoid all harsh, strong, severe words that might offend. Think on these things Nate. I am trying to hold Nelta accountable for her deliberate LIES that she has told in this forum and all others who love the truth and care for Neltas soul should do the same. So why dont you take a stand with those of us that are calling upon her to repent of these evil deeds? You cannot ride the fence, Nate, for God does not allow it. Jesus said, He that is not with me is against me. Nelta, has sinned against the Lord Jesus Christ in that she has deliberately sinned against her Brother in Christ by falsely accusing him in this forum and those who are with Christ against these things must stand with Him. Instead, Nate, we see people defending the false teacher and defending the deliberate liar who has sinned and her very soul is at stake if she never repents of this sin and if you and others really LOVE her as you should you will join with the Christians that are admonishing her to repent. I urge you brother to help sister Nelta by urging her to repent of these evil deeds. You Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

You say:

I'm with you, Nate!

And you have said:

Thank you, Nelta. I feel a oneness of Spirit with someone whose only desire is to Glorify Christ. Now Connie, you have no idea what you are talking about! Nelta was not glorifying Christ when she falsely accused Her Brother in Christ in this forum of having something against women and offered no proof that such was the case. She also was not honoring or glorifying Christ when she falsely accused that same Brother of being a coward! Her only desire has been to propagate her Neo- orthodox false doctrine and to falsely accuse her brother in this forum. We have proven without question that she is guilty of these things and you were not here when it happened and you just do not know what occurred. But if you think that those sins are glorifying Christ then you really need to study the word of God.

Connie, You just have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Nelta.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Formatting?! Formatting?!

I can tell from her attitude and her words that she is being truthful.

And from dealing with Danny myself.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Connie:

You say you can tell that Nelta is being truthful by her attitude and your experience in dealing with Danny.

What kind of attitude garantee's that a person is not lying?

Are you accusing Danny, along with Nelta, of having something against women in this forum and without any evidence to support that claim?

Are you "lovingly" calling danny a coward without any evidence to suport your false claim?

I do not think that you are but if you say that you know she is telling the truth about these two things then either show the evidence to prove it, which she has not done, or take your place alongside her as a deliberate, impentitent liar.

For the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I know nothing of the history of conflict between Nelta Brock and others on this forum, but based on the statements in the "question" I generally agree with the observations. The Restoration Movement has its own accepted and rejected doctrinal positions, and interpretations of scripture; just like most other denominations. Those that do not accept the "approved" interpretations are criticised without mercy or humility. The only difference I can see is that the accepted orthodox positions are not yet codified in a creed or confession or Statement of Faith. Perhaps it exists, and I have not yet seen it. Do you have some sort of "Essentials" document that segregates those that are part of The Restoration Movement from those that are not? If you tell me it is simply the Bible, I will not believe you. You seem to have a specific interpretation of the Bible that defines your "movement".

I noted before that I don't believe this forum promotes unity in Christ. Most of the posts are in the form of, 'you are wrong, because...'. Denominations, including The Restoration Movement, are the products of fallen man. Christians come to Christ through the churches often in spite of the inadequacies of the workers. But the Church consists of the People of God drawn from every nation and throughout time, and also from every true Christian church.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

I noted before that I don't believe this forum promotes unity in Christ. Most of the posts are in the form of, 'you are wrong, because...'.

Please tell us, why does this specifically work against unity? Does it work against unity to point out why one disagrees? If I take a certain stand, must I not also declare that I believe your stand to be incorrect if it disagrees with mine? Or does unity simply mean that everyone believes whatever they want to believe, no matter how much they contradict each other, yet as long as we talk sweet to each other, we're unified?

Please, this is not a rhetorical question. I truly hope that both you and Connie will answer.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Hey Nelta,

In the Original Post of this thread, you wrote:

"Many are run off this forum because of a few."

Many? Uh, could you list them? Most people email me privately with concerns. I have seen no indication of any mass exodus from this Forum.

If you are protecting their privacy, please ask them to email me privately to confirm your statement.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2000

Sam Loveall:

Please see my last post on the other question with the same name, in which I commented on the apparent Restoration Movement interpretation that immersion baptism is a condition of salvation. It seems that would result in the movement concluding that many of the heroes of faith throughout history, that were not immersed, are damned along with many of the Christians alive today. That leaves little room for reconciliation withing the family of God. It results in those of us who have not been immersed being considered not members of the family.

The movement does not seem to like creeds, but the Apostles Creed and others were considered the essential common beliefs that constituted membership in the Christian brotherhood. The mode of baptism is not mentioned in any of the early creeds. By the above mandate of immersion baptism, the movement makes that a condition that would exclude from salvation many of the Christians throughout history. We have to be totally wrong, and unsaved, for the Restoration Movement to be right.

That is what I object to. Not that we can't disagree, but that you have added a condition onto the biblical requirements of salvation that was not recognized in the early church, that is impossible to reconcile within the family. It is not just that we understand it differently, but we are still Christians together; but by this interpretation we understand it differently, and are not Christians together.

I do not expect unity in doctrine among all Christians on all the issues that have been hotly debated for centuries, but I had understood we were discussing what are open questions on issues that did not touch on what constitutes saving faith. I now find that the Restoration Movement believes in what is in essence a works based salvation; that adds the human action of immersion baptism to biblical salvation by grace, throuth faith that is the free gift of God.

As for who is driven away by the content of the posts on this forum, I will be one. You are preaching "another gospel", that does not rest entirely on the finshed work of Jesus Christ. I will have nothing more to do with the Restoration Movement or this forum.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Sam:

False teachers do not last long around here do they?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Duane, I should not have said *many*. That came from emotion. There have been a few and I don't even remember most of the *few* names.

nib

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Well, dbvz says he/she is leaving the Forum, not because of unfriendliness of the posters, but rather, "content" of the posts.

He/She wrote:

you have added a condition onto the biblical requirements of salvation that was not recognized in the early church...

I think even Nelta would disagree with that statement!

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Yes, Duane, I would.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2000

Proverbs 15

"1. A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

Lee,

Refering to the last post you named me in... I should hope that my stance on the issue of Nelta was well established, but I cannot find any of my own posts concerning it. So, for the official line on "What Nate Graham Thinks About Nelta Brock" here goes...

I think that I do not know what "neo-orthodoxy" is (sorry Danny, but my big words list only goes up to $1.50 each) but I believe that Nelta is wrong on this issue. While I DO NOT CONDEMN Nelta for wanting to not have an established congregation and wanting to simply meet in the homes of the body. (Something which I HAVE publicly sided with her here.) I think that she is WRONG for condemning the rest of us here who believe this to be biblically acceptable. (The establishing of legal entities, ownership of buildings, hiring of staff members, etc.)

As for her stance on Authority and Eldership... I disagree with her and stand with both Lee, Danny and any others who espouse biblical doctrine.

As for Lee rebuking and holding Nelta accountable for what she said about Danny... I agree with Lee. I have kept hoping and praying that Nelta would quit ignoring you and answer your claims. Now I do not expect Nelta to "Saffold" you back, but in her own way answer all of the things you have said in trying to hold her accountable. I agree with you, that when Nelta is "Confronted" with the truth, she ignores it, runs away and starts a new thread. BUT, she damages HER credibility by doing so in that fashion and not yours or mine.

Now as far as Connie goes...

Connie, I disagree with your theology-I choose not to confront you concerning this because as Lee has pointed out to me in another thread that it is simply not fair to you (you who hold a different viewpoint than MOST of the people in this forum) to have a bunch of people gang up on you. And in doctrine, there are plenty of others here that do a much better job than I in correcting and teaching.

Now no one pointed at me and called my name when they talked about those who would be P.C. but I felt the heat anyway... however, I believe that quoting scripture is not necessarily P.C. But to be quite honest I could care less about being P.C!!!

Those of you who have been around this forum for a while know that I am not the most "Lovey-dovey" person all the time... that I have been known to sharply rebuke a brother of sister in here. However, not everyone who disagrees with The Restoration Movement is SATAN INCARNATE and must therefore be beaten senselessly over the head until they are bleeding or have bruises. If you were to treat me thusly, I would NOT be open to learning what you would have me to learn. I would immediately become defensive and protect my head with everything that could come to bear. (illogical or not!)

Not everyone who is a false teacher does so knowingly. Have you ever heard the term "ignorant" or "un-educated"? Or they "Just don't know any better?"

There is nothing wrong with holding up the truth! But there are two ways you can do it. Would you be a modern-day Jesuit and burn them at the stake (thereby accomplishing nothing) or WIN them over to Christ and what He teaches?

You attitudes speaks louder than anything you have to say!

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

This is mainly to Nate for clarification. I have been accused of not dealing with scripture. That is a falsehood and someone will stand before the great Judge for making untrue statements such as this one. The conflict several months ago was on the work of elders. No one has ever said there is no such thing as elders. The point of disagreement is what the work of elders is.

My statement is that elders have no authority outside the word. Meaning their job is to teach from the word those they are among who need teaching. They will be looked up to because of their knowledge of the truth and their godly lives. When someone starts teaching a false doctrine the elders are to *fight* that with the word of God's truth.

The elders of the N.T. did not have the completed word. Therefore just as the other gifts were given to edify the new body the elders were gifted to know what to teach the saints. Today the completed word is given and the elders (without the special gifts) have the word to teach those *they are among*. This has all been gone over and over but it did not satisfy people such as L. and that is the reason they keep falsly accusing me of not answering (hiding.) God said vengences was His...He would reply and we are not to bite back when we are accused Therefore I stopped discussing because Prov. tells us not to answer a fool in his folly. That is the case when someone keeps on and on harping and slandering another.

Another thing he, and others, keep harping on is the fact that I said D. was a coward. That came about because a women (who no longer posts to this forum) wrote me privately and asked if Danny hated women. I never said he hated women but I did think the way he reacted to women was a cowardly way for a man to act toward women.

Those were the two things I remember all this slandering of me was all about.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Nelta,

You said:

"The elders of the N.T. did not have the completed word. Therefore just as the other gifts were given to edify the new body the elders were gifted to know what to teach the saints. Today the completed word is given and the elders (without the special gifts) have the word to teach those *they are among*."

Could you please supply scriptural references that show this theology? (i.e. special giftedness, and now not special giftedness)

I've studied leadership long and hard and I've never seen anything that resembles what you said.

As far as "slandering of me" is concerned...

Slander: "The utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition)

Please also supply the proof of slander. (Remember, for slander to be considered it must be false.

As for what you said, I will ask Bro. Lee to show you again where you in fact did slander Danny and now I also call on you to answer Lee's accusations to either disprove them or show him where he was wrong in making false accusations against you so that he may repent for any wrong-doing on his part.

I am continually amazed that you have refused to answer ANY challenges by these brothers concerning your theology. They supply biblical prove in the form of scriptures over and over, and you simply ignore their arguments and expouse on your merry way. Nelta, you know that I am not being unfair to you. IF what you are teaching is true and we are all wrong, it is YOUR responsibility to show us where we are wrong! ...when the only testamony we will accept is the Holy Writ, then why will you not show us, according to scripture, what you are teaching???

I do not see Lee as a back biter, only as a bulldog for Christ. Once he gets ahold of false teaching, he will not let go! For that I am glad. We need more defenders of the faith like Danny and Lee and Duane ad nauseum. (There's my latin for the day prof, whadderyerthink?)

I do not know what it was in your past that made you pick up on this new fangled theology, but it is wrong.... you need to check your motivatations!

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Unfortunately, these days people think that if they make a statement of their beliefs, that proves their point. A blanket statement is not proof, it is just a statement. Without scripture to back it up, its just flagging in the wind with no support.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

I went back over this thread and would like to answer the questions put to me. I have not intentionally ignored any - it's just that with so much conversation going on, it's difficult to keep up with all of the different ideas.

As to the problems between Nelta and others on this forum, that is between Nelta and them.

When I put all of the printings together on a given thread and re- read them, different things pop out which I didn't notice before.

Nelta started the thread, and I thought I could respond to her. Having been abused verbally by certain members of this thread, I could identify with her.

What went before I came to a forum which I thought was Christian, is really not my concern. Name-calling and invective are just as sinful as bad doctrine and practice. Perhaps worse, in light of the two commandments which the Lord himself said contain the whole law.

Nelta has had the spirit I see Christ embodying in His words throughout the N.T. And, by the way, she doesn't gossip.

I sent a post to her, before I knew too much of what was going on, with a single question: "Nelta, Are you blessed by this forum?" I had already been attacked. I didn't gossip, either.

Then after I posted support for Nelta, because I usually come to the defense of an underdog: well, I don't cut, copy or paste yet, but please go to the top of page 4 in this thread; Danny immediately made a snide remark.

Then Sam responds. There are times when I agree with Sam, but this isn't one of them. My Bible says to not rebuke an elder, and in this context, it means an older person, because it goes on to say how to treat older women, young men, I think, and younger women. Also, 'Honor your father'.

I feel that if Sam would take an entirely new approach with his father, he might have different results. I pray he finds a way that will bear results. He can't say anything to his father that his father hasn't said to himself. But that is Sam's and God's business. I comment on it because it seems that this is not a rare method for presenting the Gospel.

We are actually to judge ourselves the most strictly, our brethren in the specific ways mentioned in, I think Ephesians, and unbelievers not at all. They are 'dead in trespasses and in sins'. Jesus' anger seemed to be aimed mainly at the Pharisees, the religious leaders; - - I wonder what Jesus would say about this forum.

Sam, I believe we glorify God by obeying what He says: 'By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you keep my commandments'...

Also, 'Uselessly do they worship Me, for they teach as doctrines the commands of men'...[Ampl.]

'And He said to them, You have a fine way of rejecting (thus thwarting and nullifying and doing away with) the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition - your own human regulations!' [Mark 7:9 - Ampl.]

Next, Nate gives just Scripture and a few comments and I agree with him completely. 'Come; let us reason together,' I believe we can disagree agreeably.

Then Lee has a long post, which I'll get to later.

dbvz then states, toward the middle of his post: 'Those that do not accept the 'approved' interpretations are CRITICIZED WITHOUT MERCY OR HUMILITY." So he's been subjected to it, too. I can't remember the verse, but there is one which states that we should correct others with humility, lest we fall into the same temptation. (Paraphrased.)

Sam: I believe I answered your next question just above : "We can disagree agreeably". I think what is happening is that people have preconceived ideas about what Christianity is, from their separate traditions, and just cannot conceive that someone can be one and not agree COMPLETELY with their traditions.

Then we have another snide post, this time from Lee.

Then Nelta, with humility concedes she misspoke.

I know nothing of what Nelta states her beliefs are, but I'd like to know. The rest of you would, too, I'm sure. ;-) ;-) HUMOR ALERT! Where can I find those in the archives?

Nate: This is where I wanted to talk to Lee, also. I have discovered a chink in his armor! Lee said it wasn't fair to have bunch of people gang up on me. Thank you, Lee. You mention Paul's rebuke of various ones, and I agree there were rebukes.

It just seems as though there weren't as many personal attacks and denigration. I know that he rebuked Peter for agreeing with the Judaisers, but later on, Peter mentioned something about our 'Beloved brother, Paul', so it seems that they came to a oneness of spirit.

Peter also criticized Paul for the length of his epistles, or sentences, or something - I can't remember what, because I learned these verses 40 years ago, for the most part. It's a good thing I studied them when I was young, because things don't stick very well now.

Then Nelta addresses the prior conflict and says she has been accused of hiding. She then cites a couple of verses which are appropriate: "Avenge not yourselves, but give way to wrath; I will repay, saith the Lord." and: "Answer not a fool according to his folly".

I started this to answer any questions on this particular thread addressed to me. In Acts, it was a sorcerer who was trying to prevent people from believing the Gospel; it wasn't a fellow believer. Do you know how to know whether another person is a believer? A person who says "Lord, Lord", but DOESN'T OBEY is not in this category.

If a person believes in Jesus' substitutionary death for that person's sins IN HIS HEART and believes that God has raised Him from the dead, he will be saved. (No mention of baptism. I mention these when I come upon them).

I have discovered that a person who does not SAY he believes those things, doesn't seem to have any fruit in his life, which makes it easy to believe he is not a Christian. If he CLAIMS to be a Christian, and does those things which God has fobidden, we are not to even eat with him.

I'm going to try to answer Lee's questions, but I know it will take a lot of space. Here goes:

The reference to the dog returning to his vomit was talking about people going back to sinful lives after knowing the truth. And Paul's rebuke was a lot shorter than some of the posts of some here.

(Mine included). I don't like to make such long posts, but I've been goaded to respond to the same questions over and over, and I feel I have, except for a few which seem to be paradoxes, and which I am studying.

In Galatians 5: 6: (This one is good for those who compare circumcision and baptism). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS FAITH EXPRESSING ITSELF IN LOVE.'< Paul's words. Galatians 5:1 starts out with: 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE BURDENED AGAIN BY A YOKE OF SLAVERY. (To Jewish laws).

Further on: 5:13: 'You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself. 15: If you keep on biting nad devouring one another, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.'

The truth in love. Paul knew how to do it.

I would also like to say that I do not refer to these as brothers/sisters nor as saints. They rarely referred to each other that way. But I have no argument against Christians who choose to use such an appellation. We are all saints, all who believe in Christ. I would not call anyone 'father', though, because there is a specific instruction not to.

Well, Lee, I'm just at the beginning of your post, and there is another whole page and a half of single spaced questions I'm supposed to answer. Can't do it tonight.

In Him

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Nelta said:

This is mainly to Nate for clarification. I have been accused of not dealing with scripture. That is a falsehood and someone will stand before the great Judge for making untrue statements such as this one. The conflict several months ago was on the work of elders. No one has ever said there is no such thing as elders. The point of disagreement is what the work of elders is.

Nelta Said:

BTW did you all know the *Eldership* concept is not in scripture? Nelta Nelta Brock (nib@hal-pc.org), January 14, 2000

Nelta said: There are also (always) those who *would be king.* Hey, Mike, did you know there is not a word in the Greek for *authority*? 

Now Nelta, if the eldership concept is not in the scripture, which we have proven conclusively that it is in the scripture, you are guilty of teaching that there is no such thing as the office of an elder. Then you pretend that someone has accused you of saying that there is no such thing as elders. Now that is another LIE. I have corrected you for saying that the eldership concept is not in the scriptures. You have said that the elders were nothing more that the older people in the church. By that you mean that there was no such thing as the office of an elder and we have shown that to be completely false. We asked you again and again to answer my arguments on that subject and you did in fact run away and ignored those arguments. Even now you are leaving without having answered those arguments.

Nelta said:

My statement is that elders have no authority outside the word. Meaning their job is to teach from the word those they are among who need teaching. They will be looked up to because of their knowledge of the truth and their godly lives. When someone starts teaching a false doctrine the elders are to *fight* that with the word of God's truth.

Nelta said: Recap: One who is a servent (and serves others) has no authority. There is no word in the Greek for *authority*. We are to submit, one to another. No one today is empowered with spiritual gifts to fill an *office.*

Nelta plainly said that the elders have no authority at all. For if there is no word for authority in the scriptures as she falsely claimed then the elders could not have any authority at all! Now that is exactly what she said. So we have caught Nelta in yet another LIE.

Now if the elders was a SPIRITUAL GIFT that passed away after the first century then she is claiming that the "gift of being an elder passed with them. So that would mean that the elders have no right to exist.

That is what Nelta was teaching. But now she claims that she said that they have no authority outside the word. If you cannot see that she is even now LYING again then you are as BLIND AS A BAT!

Nelta said:

ISTM that every time we see the one *elder* we think of a title or a work. In reality it is talking about older people, men and women. Just my thoughts for now.

-- Nelta Brock (nib@hal-pc.org), October 26, 1999

NOW WITH THESE WORDS SHE WAS CLAIMING THAT THE ELDERS WERE JUST THE OLD PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH. We showed her where Titus was told to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). I guess they did not have any old people in those cities and Titus had to go APPOINT SOME. This is the foolish things she was teaching. But now she lies and says that she only said that the elders have no authority outside the word. Ha! Nelta, we are the ones that taught you that the elders have no authority outside the word! You claimed that there was no word for authority in the New Testament by which you intende to teach that the elders therefore had NO AUTHORITY! Once again another LIE. Nelta said:

Another thing he, and others, keep harping on is the fact that I said D. was a coward. That came about because a women (who no longer posts to this forum) wrote me privately and asked if Danny hated women. I never said he hated women but I did think the way he reacted to women was a cowardly way for a man to act toward women. She fails to tell you that she took those private comments of these women and attempted to make everyone in the forum believe that Danny had something against women in this forum. And even to this day she has refused as I asked her once to do, to come back into this forum and tell us that she does not believe that Brother Danny has anything against women in this forum. She has refused to do even that and now she is LYING again by saying that she never said that he had anything against women. She surely did and we all read it ourselves. Now why has she therefore refused to come in this forum and tell us that she does not believe that brother Danny has anything against women? If you really believe that he does not have anything against women Nelta why dont you come in here and say it. I will tell you why. Because you said it and you meant it and you could not prove it and we correctly rebuked you for it. Even if you come in here now and say that you do not believe Danny has anything against women I will still quote your words where you said that he did! Then I will call upon you to repent for those lies and the ones you have told in this post that you have written. all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. Your evil deeds Nelta will cost you your eternal soul. Repent before it is everlastingly too late. Your wickedness is not yet full is it Nelta?

She fails to tell everyone that she agreed with these women and she even asked us to tell her just what we thought God thought about brother Danny in this matter. I will get that tread brought back so you can read it for yourself. But everyone in this forum read her words and condemned her so viciously, not just E. Lee Saffold but the entire forum. It shook her so badly that she determined to leave the forum. She is lying again brethren as the above quotations show. She even offered a false apology claiming that he only sin was saying her lies publicly instead of privately. These are her words:

I have received private responses to my criticism of Danny on the forum. Each has suggested (kindly) that what I had to say to Danny should have been sent privately. I agree with that. This should never have been brough public. I am sorry for that and apology to the forum and to Danny. As one person said, that is what Christ would want me to do, and I agree. I will continue to post on the forum but in a kinder way.

Now she admits her criticism of Danny on the forum. But she does not repent of the fact that here accusation that brother Danny had something against women was a deliberate LIE. Now I reiterate that her original words are in a thread that needs to be brought back so that I can, after all these months establish every word. If you read all of my post to her you will see that I quote here words to her over and over again but I want to refer to that original post. So please, brother Deuane can you bring that post back into the forum so that the truth can be made clear. This deliberate LIAR should not be able to just waltz away as if she has done no wrong! But I will need for Deuane to bring back the thread, if it is possible, where Nelta made her original accusation against Brother Danny because I could not find it in the archives anymore. That would be helpful brother Deuane so that we can show that no one has slandered sister Nelta. At the beginning of this thread I made it quite clear what Nelta has done and those who have been in this forum know that it is the truth. But this is her tactic. To run and hide until the evidence against her is not easily found and then she returns and cries, poor me I am being slandered and persecuted in this thread . Now as soon as I can get that thread brought Back, Nelta we will compare your words with your claims and we will only see that your resent post is just more deliberate lies. Now that is not slander it is the truth.

I will come back later to say more about this matter. Nelta is trying now after several months have passed and we have people in the forum that cannot remember her words and the thread where she accused Brother Danny falsely is no longer in the archives, at least I cannot find it at the moment, and pretend to be innocent. But I will find that thread with Brother Deuanes help and I will expose her last PARTING LIE.

You know what you have done Nelta, and I have plenty of witnesses in this forum to prove it. In fact I will spend some time to go wading through the archives to quote your false teaching and lies about Brother Danny so all can see that you are parting from us as an impenitent LIAR. You will lose your soul for these things Nelta and when I have found this thread wherein you LIED about your brother in Christ I will quote your words and make one last attempt to get you to repent for your souls sake. You will see your LIES again at the Judgement if you do not repent!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Connie;

You'll notice I wasn't one of the ones who "ganged up" on you. I figured you were new to this forum, so you probably didn't know Nelta or what she stood for, only what she said in a couple of postings. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. =)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Thanks, John!

You're sticking to the 'SUPERhero' code!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie:

You said:

"Then we have another snide post, this time from Lee"

More assertions without proof. Why do not you just quote the "snide" remarks that you claim that I have made Connie. Do you think that people cannot read and that they are follish enough to believe something just because you say it?

This is your constant method Connie. You perceive something as being snide then you accuse the author of writing a snide remark but you do not quote his words as evidence so that he can either explain the remark or at least have the oppotunity to repent for having made it.

The truth is Connie, you do not want us to see these post that you claim are "snide" because you know as well as I that your only problem with those post is that they contain arguments against your false doctrine that you cannot answer and you do not want to be PRESSED to give an answer or repent of theach false doctrine. Now that is true and evidence that it is true is found in your constant habit of ASERTING WITHOUT PROVING. Usually when this is done the person making the assertion is deliberately trying to hide something. THey are usually trying to hide the fact that there is another explaination of your assertion than the one you give to it.

But you just do not want us to examine everything in the clear light of day , now do you Connie?

Now you may consider what I have just written as "snide" but you will wait a while and then mention that Lee wrote another "snide" post without referring to this actual post where people can see that what I was actually doing was sharply critisizing you for this deliberate tactic that is a favorite tool of those who have something to hide. Especailly those who teach that which is false.

You Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Nelta:

In my previous post concerning your parting false accusation that I have "slandered you" I have proven that you have lied about your previous affirmations about the elders. I now quote your word's wherein you claim that I slandered you in reference to the false accusations that you made about Brother Danny in this forum and that you called him a Coward without offering one shred of evidence to prove that he was in fact a coward. I now quote your words wherein you accuse me of slandering you and I will show that by accusing me of slandering you without any proof that it is true you are guilty of yet another lie for which you will face God in the judgment. Nelta, I will show that you are in danger of eternal punishment, as I have shown many times previously, for your deliberate LIES and false accusations against your brothers in this forum. Then you tell one more lie concerning me with your following words:

"Another thing he, and others, keep harping on is the fact that I said D. was a coward. That came about because a women (who no longer posts to this forum) wrote me privately and asked if Danny hated women. I never said he hated women but I did think the way he reacted to women was a cowardly way for a man to act toward women."

Now with these words you assert but do not prove that I slandered you and you finish by saying:

"Those were the two things I remember all this slandering of me was all about."

Now Nelta, I am going to refresh your memory for you. With Brother Duane's help I now have your exact words in the original post wherein you falsely accused and deliberately left the false impression that "Danny had something against women in this forum". I now quote it along with your above words so that all can see the kind of deliberate liar you really are. These were your words:

"I heard from someone recently who wanted to know what Danny had against women. I got to thinking about that and came to the realization that Danny is a coward. He thinks he can say any thing to, and about women, yet you don't find him doing that to men. He and his admirers think he is so funny. Did you ever wonder what God thinks about it?"

Now any one reading this can see that it was your intent to make it known to us that someone had asked you "what Danny had against women". Then you make it quite clear that you did some thinking about it and came to the "realization" that "Danny is a coward." Then you go on with a statement that makes it obvious that you agree with these women in their judgment about Danny by offering your assertion that "He thinks he can SAY ANYTHING TO AND ABOUT WOMEN, yet you do not find him doing that to men". Now there is no doubt from this quotation of your words that you agreed with the judgment of those who had come to you privately claiming that Danny "had something against women" because you immediately posted it in the forum and claimed that Danny treated women differently than he treated men and that he thought that he could "say anything to and about women" but that he did not treat the men that way. It is clear that you were agreeing that Danny had something against women and you used your assertion that he thought that he could "say anything to and about women" as evidence to support the idea that Danny had something against women. You most certianly did not say, "while I disagree with her thinking that Danny has anything against women I want to talk about why she thought that way". No, Nelta you DID NOT DISAGREE with her at all, now did you? In fact in my numerous post to you about this matter I called upon you to come in here and tell this forum that you DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DANNY HAS ANYTHING AGAINST WOMEN but you have not done so yet. Even if you do it will not change the fact that you have surely deliberately falsely accused him of such!! And you have not repent of this sin yet.

Now you did not prove any of your false accusations against Danny. So you were severely rebuke by the entire forum. Nelta, I am sure you remember, that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON SPOKE UP IN YOUR DEFENSE during this time. In fact some even went to you directly through e-mail to protest your behavior. The impact of that sharp rebuke brought you back to the forum with this false apology wherein you apologize only for saying the above things "publicly" when they should have been said "privately". But you failed to see that your sin was not that you accused your brother publicly.It was that you accused him FALSELY. But I now quote your false apology as follows:

"Subject: An apology to the forum

"I have received private responses to my criticism of Danny on the forum. Each has suggested (kindly) that what I had to say to Danny should have been sent privately. I agree with that. This should never have been brought public. I am sorry for that and apology to the forum and to Danny. As one person said, that is what Christ would want me to do, and I agree. I will continue to post on the forum but in a kinder way.

Nelta"

Now you titled your thread "An Apology to the forum" because you knew the entire forum was expecting an apology from you because you had FALSELY accused brother Danny of Having something against women" by agreeing with your private caller and offering support for her feelings with the accusation, which you knew to be patently false, that "Danny thought that he could say anything to and about women" (Sounds like someone that has something against women doesn't it?) and that he discriminated against them in this because he did not treat MEN IN THE SAME WAY.

Now Nelta, no one accused you of saying that "Danny hates women" as you have tried to make it seem. I accused you truthful of falsely accusing your brother Danny of "having something against women and I called upon you to give evidence that your charge was true or repent and apologize to your brother for this false accusation. You never repented Nelta. You never asked your Brother to forgive you and you have never yet given even one shred of evidence to support those false allegations against your Brother in Christ.

Then you come in here with your parting words and heap LIE upon LIE and compound your evil by saying:

"That came about because a women (who no longer posts to this forum) wrote me privately and asked if Danny hated women. I never said he hated women but I did think the way he reacted to women was a cowardly way for a man to act toward women."

You say you never said he hated women. And I never accused you of saying he "hated" women. I accused you of falsely claiming along with your "private caller" (which you gave no evidence to prove she ever existed or that you ever received such a call. I would normally just take your word for something like that but your consistent LYING makes everything you say suspect.) that Danny had something against women.

Now just to make every thing clear I am now going to post your initial LIE alongside your PARTING LIE so people can see for themselves that my call for you to repent of your lies is in fact very much justified and right.

This is a direct quote of your initial LIE about your Brother Danny:

"I heard from someone recently who wanted to know what Danny had against women. I got to thinking about that and came to the realization that Danny is a coward. He thinks he can say any thing to, and about women, yet you don't find him doing that to men. He and his admirers think he is so funny. Did you ever wonder what God thinks about it?"

This is your parting LIE denying responsibility for your initial LIE:

""Another thing he, and others, keep harping on is the fact that I said D. was a coward. That came about because a women (who no longer posts to this forum) wrote me privately and asked if Danny hated women. I never said he hated women but I did think the way he reacted to women was a cowardly way for a man to act toward women." Now everyone can compare them and see clearly that you made the distinct impression that Danny had something against women and was therefore discriminating against them in this forum. That accusation remains to this day to be absolutely false to the core and you have never proven it to be true. Nor have you repented of having said it and you have never apologized to your brother for making such false claims. Though you did not say that brother Danny "hated" women, and I have never said that you did, you surely left the impression that he did not like them or respect them equally with the men. One could read what you said and surely draw the conclusion for themselves that you never actually penned with your words that Brother Danny definitely "hates" women. This is a favorite tactic of "Neo - Orthodox" proponents. They work hard not to actually and literally "say" anything directly. Instead they work craftily and artfully at leaving and creating strong impressions by inference and implication and thus are always able to maintain "deniability" and can withdraw gracefully when they meet with strong challenges and wait for another opportunity to "try again".

However Nelta is not as skillful as most of the Neo Orthodox proponents that I have dealt with in the past. Now they would have never made the egregious blunder that you have made,Nelta, by actually accusing Brother Danny so clearly in writing. But we have caught you in your LIES and your "graceful exit is closed". You can go Nelta, and take you LIES with you but as soon as you stick your nose back in this forum I will begin calling upon you to repent of these evil deeds. I will do this because I do not want you to lose your soul for the numerous and deliberate lies you are guilty of telling in this forum. FOR YOUR LIES HAVE COMPOUNDED in your failed attempts to avoid responsibility for them.

Brother Nate, I believe the final evidence that I needed has been presented and Brother Duane I thank you for helping me find those two original threads wherein Nelta made her false accusations for which she has yet to repent.

I know that this particular thread is long. If this causes this matter concerning Nelta to be buried then I will start another thread just to bring it up into the light of day. For we cannot allow a faithful Brother or Sister in Christ to be falsely accused without taking a clear stand against those who have done such things. False accusations are a pernicious evil and we must fight against evil fervently in all of its forms. I also want everyone to understand that when you speak the truth as Brother Danny does his very best to always do, you will surely be falsely accused soon there after. Those who love the truth should stand up when they see the teacher of the truth being falsely accused of anything! Remember brethren It could happen to you.

I appreciate this forum however, because every person in this forum without one single exception has resisted Nelta's lies concerning her Brother in Christ, Danny Gabbard. He was not deserving of those deliberate false accusations and I am happy to say that the Christians in this forum did not stand for it.

I pray fervently for us all that we may walk in the light of the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

This, also.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001