I tried to send this an hour or two ago, but it disappeared into "cyberspace". (Does anyone know what happens to the messages when that happens?) So I've re-written it (and saved a copy this time) and will try again.

I ran across the following few lines last night in a book I'm reading. When I read them, I was reminded of things I had read earlier in the day in the "Salvation Issues" and "Another Gospel" threads. But it would also apply to what I've seen recently in several other threads in this forum.

The book is THE GRAVEDIGGER FILES, by Os Guinness (IVP, 1983). It is written in similar fashion to THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, by C.S. Lewis. Instead of purporting to be letters from a senior devil to a junior one, it is written in the form of memoranda from one of the devil's agents to another, under his supervision, who is going to a new posting. The memoranda are supposed to be explanations of the devil's strategy for subverting Christianity in western culture. The particular memorandum that these lines come from is about creating and widening divisions between different groups of Christians. The main focus is on the division between conservative and liberal, but what is said would apply to many divisions among believers.

"Sincerity is one of the strongest drives in the whole movement of polarization. Passionate sincerity fuels the polarization and makes it extreme and bitter (each side, being sincere, regards the other's position as not wholly honest). This becomes useful in allowing us to egg them on and compound the damage." (Page 177).

I know it is possible to be "sincerely wrong", and when two sides sincerely believe things that are mutually incompatible at least one of them must be wrong. (And it may be that both are.) But does that necessarily mean that the other person is being deliberately dishonest? I have found from experience (including my own mistakes) that once you start accusing someone of dishonesty or deception (or stupidity), the doors close, the shutters go down, and they are no more listening to your arguments than you are to theirs.

I guess the question is, are you more concerned about winning the debate or winning the person? If you really want to win the person, it helps to give them credit for being sincere (even if you think they are sincerely wrong), and encourage them to be equally sincere in pursuing the truth.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Answers

Ben....

How does your post "jibe" with Paul consigning the Judaisers to hell in Galatins chapter one? Or John, in his letters refering to the Gnostics as the "ante-Christ?" Or Paul refering to the Judaisers in Philippians as dogs??

Then, how does this compare with those are teaching "another gospel" in our churches today?? (And here we are not talking about Connie....we are talking about preachers and teachers among the flock who are actively teaching a doctrine that destroys the doctrine of grace.)

It seems to me, "winning the argument" is the difference between.....life and death.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John....There is a whole lot more at stake here than catching flies.

Do you want to take a stab at "jibing" Ben's post with the Scriptures I pointed out??

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Connie....

Do you use Isaac Errett to support your faith only position.

Did you not read closely what he said??

He stated, "Baptism is where the gift of God is appropriated."

Not before....which is why Acts 2:38 speaks of being immersed FOR the forgiveness of sin.

I will admit.....you are getting closer to the truth. Keep studying....and then you will have no choice but to arrive at the truth we have all been at for a long time.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie....

THEREFORE.....do not give the impression you agree with Isaac Errett. You're not even in the ball park.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Ben.....

Based on Connie's smirky response to D.Lee......you've made great strides!! Keep up the good work.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

....and going...and going....and going.....and going...

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Well like my old granny used to say, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Danny,

I agree with you. I keep hearing that saying, and do understand its underlying intention... BUT there is also time to CONFRONT. (Besides, have you heard all of the great things a little vinegar will do for your health?!!)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Danny:

In thinking about what Benjamin had to say in his initial post :

I know it is possible to be "sincerely wrong", and when two sides sincerely believe things that are mutually incompatible at least one of them must be wrong. (And it may be that both are.) But does that necessarily mean that the other person is being deliberately dishonest? I have found from experience (including my own mistakes) that once you start accusing someone of dishonesty or deception (or stupidity), the doors close, the shutters go down, and they are no more listening to your arguments than you are to theirs.

I guess the question is, are you more concerned about winning the debate or winning the person? If you really want to win the person, it helps to give them credit for being sincere (even if you think they are sincerely wrong), and encourage them to be equally sincere in pursuing the truth. In the above paragraphs are Benjamin's words.

Each of us could be sincerely wrong in our interpretation, I agree; or perhaps one of us is wrong.

But in making an accusation of 'Gnosticism' or 'Judaizing' I think we had better be sure that WE are not the guilty ones.

Since 'Gnostic' comes up so much, let me make myself clear: I am definitely NOT a Gnostic; I definitely DO NOT believe that there can be no good to come from the physical, from a spiritual standpoint. I believe there is much good in the physical. I believe that immersion had GREAT value for me. I do not believe it saved me, though. It is a physical act, and there are a MULTITUDE of verses which state that Christ's shed bllod is what saves us; not our obedience; not our baptism.

Repentance has the image of being completely turned in a different direction; there is the analogy of being born into God's family; (born again); Repentance and Faith are tied together (and no, I do not have a verse which says that, but neither do we have one for the Trinity, but we believe it (at least I do).

Also, there is no word for 'rapture' in the Bible, but most Christians believe we will be taken up to meet Christ in the air and some have named that "rapture'. Does it hurt any doctrine of the Body of Christ? ~ I don't think so, but I don't use it because of the tender consciences of some Christians. I DO use the term 'Trinity' however, leaving the chips to fall where they may.

I consider that anyone who adds anything of any kind, even baptism, to the finished work of Christ could be considered a Judaizer.

When I first was attacked on this forum, that was my response. Now, I just sort of think we look at this from a different perspective; you think you are right, and I think I am right. Only God knows, but I think he wants us to know also.

So we are going through the paces. I must admit that I DO turn off anyone who calls me a liar, satanic, not a believer, or disobedient to God. Now, sometimes I do fall short of the Glory of God. But I am thankful that He has provided me a propitiation for my sins.

For some reason, that humorous sign in stores popped into my head: "In God We Trust ~ Everyone Else Pays Cash"; In God I trust; everyone else needs to prove himself.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

"Repentance and Faith are tied together (and no, I do not have a verse which says that, but neither do we have one for the Trinity, but we believe it (at least I do)."

Connie, with the above words are you telling us that you no longer ascribe to the "Faith Alone" doctrine?

You say, "...and no, I do not have a verse which says that, but neither do we have one for the Trinity, but we believe it (at least I do)"

Are you implying here that you believe something even though you can not find scriptural proof? You seem to put this in the same category as not having a verse for "Trinity".

Why can you not believe the following, which is so plain?

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, 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.

You said Repentance and Faith are tied together, and believed this even though you could give no scriptural proof, why will you not believe baptism is also tied together with faith. Without one you can not have the other.

Of course, repentance is a part of our salvation, and there are many verses which say such. As for a verse that says to believe and repent...

Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" Same goes here, without one you can not have the other.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

D. Lee:

I have other things I must attend to and your post is going to take some time.

I didn't say there were no verses supporting belief and repentance; my meaning was that I couldn't remember the references off the top of my head. There are many verses supporting those concepts, but i am workong on my main thesis about baptism, offline.

This that I refer to above is a re-typing of something I typed day- before-yesterday, which disappeared from my computer when my daughter minimized it for my future use.

I know that you all have a certain few verses which you have memorized, but my approach has been more of a reading in complete context, so that there is a complete view of what the Scriptures say.

I have accessed Duane's site on what your group believes and it is instructive that I don't think the expounders of your position are quite as dogmatic as you are. They seem much closer to what I believe than what you say you believe.

Under "Our Position" by Young (Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union) by Isaac Everett, Editor of 'The Christian Standard' in Chapter III at near the bottom of paragraph two, he states:

"With us, regeneration must be so far accomplished before baptism that the subject is changed in heart, and in faith and penitance must have yielded up his heart to Christ -- otherwise baptism is nothing but an empty form. But FORGIVENESS (his emphasis) is something distinct from REGENERATION. Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign -- not a change of the sinner's heart; and while it is extended in view of the sinner's faith and repentance, it needs to be offered in a sensible and tangible form, such that the sinner can seize and apprpriate it with unmistakeable definiteness. In baptism he APPROPRIATES GOD'S PROMISE OF FORGIVENESS, (his emphasis) relying on the divine testimonies: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit." He thus lays hold of the promise of Christ and appropriates it as his own. hedoes not MERIT it, nor PROCURE it, nor EARN it, in being baptized, but he APPROPRIATES what the mercy of God has provided and offered in the gospel. We therefore teach all who are baptized that if they bring to their baptism a heart that renounces sin and implicitly trusts the power of Christ to save, they should rely on the Savior's own promise -- "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

I agree wholeheartedly, and obeyed every step.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

D. Lee:

In another thread I went into a quite complex and involved explanation of my belief. When I have time, I will go back and paste it here.

E.Lee is the one who used propaganda to get you to believe something I didn't say, twisting not only MY words, but those of the Scriptures, as well; (Of my one statement of 'faith alone') and I noted that it was not a quote from Scripture, but a reference to many verses which even your group accedes to ~ that salvation is through faith (as a result of repentance) ~ two different concepts ~ and I went into a long discourse on the separate meanings of all the different words.

Now you believe I said something I never said, because of the 'Big Lie' technique Lee uses. (Others have complained of this as well).

Where we part company is that you have suspended your reason and believe that baptism is not a 'work' ~ a physical act. IT IS A PHYSICAL ACT ~ THE OPERATION OF ONE OBJECT ON ANOTHER OBJECT; IN THIS CASE OF A BAPTIZER ON A BAPTIZED!

May God enlighten and teach us all what has been given us in His Word, in the Name of His Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie,

The following are your words, and you have stated your position very clearly:

"You have missed the entire message of the 'Good news' of the New Testament: That Jesus died for our sins and that we have to do NOTHING ELSE to be saved."

"Boy, this is going to go slowly! I can see why you keep reiterating your parrot-like schtick. Almost all of the verses which state that it is by FAITH ONLY are stated in a positive and sometimes complex way. Now, none say that in so many words. (Notice that I did not put quotation marks around that expression, because if I did, it would be quoting Lee, not the Scriptures."

"It is very late and I am too tired to continue tonight. I will give it my time tomorrow, but this may take a couple of days to answer. It is not because I am afraid of the answers; 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. The seeming inconsistencies are known to God and we will see them when we get our glasses polished. Now, of course, we 'see through a glass darkly.'"

"But dbvz, (and others) don't give up yet! here is ample proof that our position is the Scriptural one; it just takes a lot of effort to dig it out. Which time I am willing to invest. It will probably be in 1-3 passage increments, because of the necessary verbiage to be absolutely clear on my interpretation."

You have said that you believe "FAITH ALONE" saves.

By saying the following, you have falsely accused E. Lee of using propaganda to color my way of thinking.

"E.Lee is the one who used propaganda to get you to believe something I didn't say, twisting not only MY words, but those of the Scriptures, as well..."

"Now you believe I said something I never said, because of the 'Big Lie' technique Lee uses."

No such thing has happened...

#1. I have a brain of my own to think and reason with.

and

#2. The evidence is above...your words...you did say it.

What I want to know is have you changed your position since you now say, "Repentance and Faith are tied together"? If you can see this I am glad, because it is straight from the Word of God!

You have also said, "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."

When you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override those scriptures?

What am I to test your personal experience by? The Bible teaches plainly that baptism is connected to salvation, but your personal experience tells you that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation?

I must choose the Word...Acts 2:38; 16:22; Rom. 6, Col. 2:12 and I Peter 3:21.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

D. Lee:

You don't need to test my personal experience; only God does. I am not going to be fellowshipping with you in your local church. If I were, then you might need to ask me your questions. As the writer of that paper on Duane's site says, you do even less questioning of prospective members than we do. (Isaac Errett) He seems to have some authority in your group.

You are supposed to accept my saying that I believe in my heart that Christ died for my sins, and that God raised Him from the dead; you are to observe the fruit I bear ~ whether I exhibit the fruit of the spirit.; you are supposed to accept my word that in my baptism, which was in obedience to Christ, that I understood that my sins were 'remissed' ~ forgiven. That is all you are to do.

I am not angry as I say this; I am simply speaking the truth in love.

I know it is difficult to change from going in one direction in another; I went through it when I believed. Everything was made new, even though I was 26 years old. We were new people in Christ. You, nor Lee nor anyone else is going to take me out of His hand.

In His Name, forever!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Danny:

The more I study, the more I am convinced that my salvation is secured by Christ's shed blood, alone.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

'Not by WORKS of righteousness which we have done, but according to His MERCY He saved us, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' ********************************************************************** The washing of regeneration is the new birth, not baptism. **********************************************************************

'For by GRACE are you SAVED through FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, not of WORKS, lest anyone should boast. ********************************************************************** The above doesn't say through faith alone, but it is definitely understood. ********************************************************************** I John 5:11,12,13: '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.'

'These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of god: that you may KNOW that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the Name of the Son of God.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

I don't care what ballpark I play in as long as I'm on God's team. Which I am.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Danny Gabbard, Sr. asked,

Ben....

How does your post "jibe" with Paul consigning the Judaisers to hell in Galatins chapter one? Or John, in his letters refering to the Gnostics as the "ante-Christ?" Or Paul refering to the Judaisers in Philippians as dogs??

Then, how does this compare with those are teaching "another gospel" in our churches today?? (And here we are not talking about Connie....we are talking about preachers and teachers among the flock who are actively teaching a doctrine that destroys the doctrine of grace.)

It seems to me, "winning the argument" is the difference between.....life and death.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), April 05, 2000.

-------------------------

Danny,

No problem whatsoever in "jibing" that I can see. I'm not talking about the ending point; I'm talking about the beginning. When I'm talking with someone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ, and who seems sincere in wanting to follow Him, I give him/her the "benefit of the doubt and try, PATIENTLY, to explain, teach, and persuade. (I believe God has given me a degreee of ability to teach, especially to clarify difficult points, and I believe I should make use of that in His service.)

When the time comes that it is OBVIOUS, that the person is "closed", I will "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "return good for evil" a few time, just to "be on the safe side." (That last was in quotation marks because it is a clichi, the others are in quotation marks because they are from the Bible.) When it is STILL obvious that they are closed, hard-hearted, and not listening, THEN I will "shake the dust from my feet" and move on.

To be frank, I TRY to have greater patience for those who are seriously in error (provided they show some sign of being willing to listen and to search the Scriptures) than for "brethren" who seem more concerned for "putting down" anyone they disagree with than they are with REALLY teaching the truth. With the former it may very well be a matter of life or death, and it is important not to drive them away too soon; with the latter it may be nothing more than an intellectual exercise or an exercise in building one's ego at the expense of others. (Yes, I can and do "play rough" when I think it's called for. But when someone's soul may be at stake, I prefer patience, gentleness and love.)

I hope Connie won't mind too much if I quote something she told me "off-forum." I asked her a question very similar to what D. Lee Muse asked (above), but in a less confrontative way. I asked, "*IF* you were to find something in the scriptures that was CLEARLY contradictory to your experience, which would you choose? What the Bible clearly says, or your experience? I know you are convinced that your experience is from the Holy Spirit, and if it really is, then this could not happen. (So you should be quite safe in saying yes.) But would you be willing to entertain that as a theoretical possibility, and then say which you would choose?"

This was her answer, "Yes, I would change my position if I saw it in the Scripture. So far, I haven't. I know you've done quite a bit of studying, even in the Greek, but I am still having trouble with your belief that baptism is not a 'work'. The CoC have to maintain that for the many verses which indicate that we are not saved by works to be true for them."

How open is she? Only God knows, but I feel she is still open at this point. How much longer that will be true if all she gets in this forum is abuse, I don't know.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie,

You accused E. Lee of coloring my way of thinking, and of using the "Big Lie" technique, because you said he twisted your words and that you did not say "faith alone" saves.

I proved with YOUR OWN WORDS that you did say that. This you completely ignored. Do you believe it is right to accuse someone falsely and then when proven otherwise ignore that you even said it? Would you consider answering the following questions I asked of you??

What I want to know is have you changed your position since you now say, "Repentance and Faith are tied together"?

When you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override those scriptures?

Connie, I know you know better than what you have said with the following: "You don't need to test my personal experience; only God does." I am not going to be fellowshipping with you in your local church. If I were, then you might need to ask me your questions.

You know the word of God says to test the spirits, and how to test the spirits, which is exactly what goes on daily in this forum. Checking and rechecking everything anyone says with the Word. When what someone says is in direct opposition of the Word, the Word always wins. Wouldn't you agree??

Are you saying that because you are not fellowshipping in my local congregation, that I need not ask your motives, enquire as to what you believe or why you believe it? Surely not.

Are you including me and my local body in the following, "As the writer of that paper on Duane's site says, you do even less questioning of prospective members than we do. (Isaac Errett) He seems to have some authority in your group."

"You are supposed to accept my saying that I believe in my heart that Christ died for my sins, and that God raised Him from the dead; you are to observe the fruit I bear ~ whether I exhibit the fruit of the spirit.; you are supposed to accept my word that in my baptism, which was in obedience to Christ, that I understood that my sins were 'remissed' ~ forgiven. That is all you are to do."

You have no idea what goes on here in my local body. I personally had not heard of Isaac Errett before he was mentioned by Duane. He has NO authority in what you call our "group". We are not a denomination, and no one man has authority over the "group" Duane made it clear in the "What The Christian Church Believes" thread, that what Isaac wrote was not an official statement. Though I do concur with much of what he has said. Please read what he has to say again, for you missed it.

Do you really believe that your sins were forgiven at baptism? Please answer this one.

Finally, you said:

"'For by GRACE are you SAVED through FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, not of WORKS, lest anyone should boast. ********************************************************************** The above doesn't say through faith alone, but it is definitely understood."

That is definitely not true. It is definitely understood that we are...saved...by grace...through faith...not of self...the gift of God...not by works...lest any should boast. How can it be understood that we are saved by faith alone?

How is it that you accuse Lee falsely, saying you did not say something, when in fact you have said it again in your last post?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Benjamin,

Are you saying that others including myself in the forum have not been PATIENT with Connie? Of course we have been patient. We are still here trying to persuade her. trying to explain, and teach as you say.

As for the following which you have said, isn't this point a personal decision?

"When the time comes that it is OBVIOUS, that the person is "closed", I will "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "return good for evil" a few time, just to "be on the safe side." (That last was in quotation marks because it is a clichi, the others are in quotation marks because they are from the Bible.) When it is STILL obvious that they are closed, hard-hearted, and not listening, THEN I will "shake the dust from my feet" and move on."

There may be people here that have already reached that point with Connie, there may be others like myself who still hold out a hope that she will see clearly what the scripture say. Otherwise, I would as you say have had to "shake the dust from my feet and move on." BUT, remember this is a personal decision.

Then you say, "To be frank, I TRY to have greater patience for those who are seriously in error (provided they show some sign of being willing to listen and to search the Scriptures) than for "brethren" who seem more concerned for "putting down" anyone they disagree with than they are with REALLY teaching the truth. With the former it may very well be a matter of life or death, and it is important not to drive them away too soon; with the latter it may be nothing more than an intellectual exercise or an exercise in building one's ego at the expense of others. (Yes, I can and do "play rough" when I think it's called for. But when someone's soul may be at stake, I prefer patience, gentleness and love.) "

To be just as frank, I do have a greater patience for those who are seriously in error (provided they show some sign of being willing to listen and to search the scriptures) even when they are searching the scriptures to disprove what it says about baptism. Why do I have a greater patience for them? I was one of them. They touch my heart like no other!!

Who in your opinion are the "brethren" who seem more concerned for "putting down" anyone they disagree with than they are with REALLY teaching the truth? When you "play rough" as you call it. Are there reason you play rough? Not everyone comes to the conclusion to "play rough" as you call it at the same time would you not agree?

There is no playing going on here. You and I both know that it is life or death. We are trying to get others to see that. Maybe in a different way than the other one. Both forms or both ways of dealing with another are scriptural. I have been patient, loving, and blunt.

I said earlier, "When you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override those scriptures? What am I to test your personal experience by? The Bible teaches plainly that baptism is connected to salvation, but your personal experience tells you that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation? I must choose the Word...Acts 2:38; 16:22; Rom. 6, Col. 2:12 and I Peter 3:21. "

You said, "I hope Connie won't mind too much if I quote something she told me "off-forum." I asked her a question very similar to what D. Lee Muse asked (above), but in a less confrontative way. I asked, "*IF* you were to find something in the scriptures that was CLEARLY contradictory to your experience, which would you choose? What the Bible clearly says, or your experience? I know you are convinced that your experience is from the Holy Spirit, and if it really is, then this could not happen. (So you should be quite safe in saying yes.) But would you be willing to entertain that as a theoretical possibility, and then say which you would choose?"

So because I did not start my sentence with the word "IF", I was more "confrontative" as you say. Was there a need for me to say "IF"?

I have found my personal experience to be in conflict with the scriptures in the past, I am sure it will happen again in the future. I am sure both you and Connie have found yourselves in conflict with the scriptures. We all have been at some time or another. I based my question understanding this fact.

The question was asked in all "sincerity" in an attempt to know how best to approach her.

Ben, just so you know if you don't already, I have been exactly where Connie has been. I can...to a point...see before she answers what her answer will be. She has so far held out NO surprises for me. I have said it all. I too looked into the Word to disprove what it says about baptism. It can not be done. I pray she will not continue to be blinded to what the Bible says about baptism.

It is my prayer Connie that you will see the truth. It may not be today, tomorrow, next month...it took me a over a year. But if you are willing to search the scriptures, and to take them for what they say, it will happen.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

D. Lee, Dear:

I have seen the Truth and He has set me free. My prayers are with all of you.

I don't have time to address all you said, but will when I get back tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Connie quoted this yesterday:

"With us, regeneration must be so far accomplished before baptism that the subject is changed in heart, and in faith and penitance must have yielded up his heart to Christ -- otherwise baptism is nothing but an empty form. But FORGIVENESS (his emphasis) is something distinct from REGENERATION. Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign -- not a change of the sinner's heart; and while it is extended in view of the sinner's faith and repentance, it needs to be offered in a sensible and tangible form, such that the sinner can seize and apprpriate it with unmistakeable definiteness. In baptism he APPROPRIATES GOD'S PROMISE OF FORGIVENESS, (his emphasis) relying on the divine testimonies: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit." He thus lays hold of the promise of Christ and appropriates it as his own. he does not MERIT it, nor PROCURE it, nor EARN it, in being baptized, but he APPROPRIATES what the mercy of God has provided and offered in the gospel. We therefore teach all who are baptized that if they bring to their baptism a heart that renounces sin and implicitly trusts the power of Christ to save, they should rely on the Savior's own promise -- "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

Correct me if I am wrong, but from this explanation it seems your position makes the following distinctions:

1. A Christian can be regenerate, a believer, "changed in heart", be "in faith and penitance", and "have yielded up his heart to Christ" - - but still remain unforgiven for their sins if they have not been baptized by immersion.

2. You believe that "Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign"; and you have concluded that God will forgive only when a Christian as described above, would realize that immersion baptism is a requirement for forgiveness and be baptized in that way. Perhaps God is more forgiving than you give him credit for. You agree with me that forgiveness is His act, granted on his terms not yours.

3. You have frequently stated that baptism is not a "work", and that the one being baptized is passive; but the explanation describes baptism as, "such that the sinner can seize and apprpriate it with unmistakeable definiteness. In baptism he APPROPRIATES GOD'S PROMISE OF FORGIVENESS, (his emphasis) relying on the divine testimonies" Thoe one being baptized is not entirely passive then, but is an actor in grasping and appropriating. A "work" does not necessarilly need to be physical action.

I can agree with nearly every word of the explanation given above, with this point of explanation: Regeneration FOLLOWS salvation. God does not regenerate those he has not predestined for salvation.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

D. Lee:

(And Danny) I was NOT being 'smirky' ~ your word ~ in my response to D. Lee. I was SINCERELY trying to be gentle.

The explanation of the 'faith alone' phrase is getting so involved that it is almost impossible to explain.

I did say that we are saved by faith alone, (I said it, and I believe it (understanding of course, that that faith is dependant on the shed blood of Christ and death on the cross. ~ I didn't say they were used together in the Scriptures; in other words, I didn't use them in a quote). Of course, when I said that, I knew that repentance has to be involved, also, and there are many verses which include both. Neither of those is a physical act or a 'work'. It is just accepting that one is a sinner and in need of the Savior.

I would say that those two things are probably simultaneous, and inextricably intertwined. At the very moment of a person's repentance, God provides the propitiation ~ the shed blood of Christ and His death on the cross.

Of course, confession is part of the whole plan as is baptism; it's just that nothing except the repentance and faith (virtuously simultaneous) effect (cause); the forgiveness (remission) ~ the not holding one legally accountable for that one's sins.

WHAT LEE KEPT ERRONEOUSLY REPEATING WAS THAT I SAID THE SCRIPTURES USED THE WORDS TOGETHER ~ 'FAITH ALONE'. I WENT BACK AND FOUND WHAT I SAID and I did not use those words in quotes as though the Scriptures have those two words together. And then he would say that I said that God said to disobey ~ or some such nonsense. To tell you the truth, after he lied so much about what I said, I quit reading what he had to say. Or responding to it.

Now, there are many verses which say we are not saved by works ~ only by the shed blood of Christ. Even the CoC says that ~ it's just that they have an interesting 'take' on whether baptism is a 'work' ~ with a convoluted explanation.

Now, what I have just given you is also convoluted, but I have explained it probably five times, now.

I did NOT use the words together, as though they were from the Scriptures ~'FAITH ALONE'. I said that in my own words, ~ no quotes ~ to explain what MANY VERSES say. And I have written THOSE out many times, as well.

But I'm patient. I will write them out again, if I have time. I doubt if it will do much good, because you want to disbelieve me and you want to believe Lee. It's dangerous to believe lies, D. Lee.

Tonight I have to get some sleep, having traveled all day.

I am in no way angry ~ I can't afford anger very often, so I reserve it for really heinous behavior and words, and yours weren't that.

It is ironic that each of us wants the other to experience what we ourselves have discovered. I pray for the freedom in Christ with no good work earning me passage to heaven ~ not even baptism, for you.

Neither of us has all the answers, but God will provide all He wants us to have, and at least HE WILL NOT UPBRAID.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Danny, you said:

"Based on Connie's smirky response to D.Lee......you've made great strides!! Keep up the good work."

I'm not quite sure if that is genuine congratulations, or merely sarcasm. If it is genuine, thank you.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

D. Lee:

One thing I have clarified in my mind in my study is that EVERYTHING is secondary to Christ's death and shed blood on the cross; THAT is what has saved me, and my repentence, my belief, my confession and my baptism are steps of obedience, all of which I have obeyed.

For dbvz:

I agree that God draws us to Himself; I don't completely understand your position on predestination, but if you want to e-mail me I would like your definition. We are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, from the foundation of the world, but God is not willing that any should perish, and I think makes the offer of salvation to all.

Being Omniscient, He knows who will accept and who will not, and did, from the foundation of the world.

Verses which come to mind: (And which remind me of the book 'The Hound of Heaven', which had as its precept that God 'hounds' us 'til we say 'yes'):

John 6:44-47: [AMPLIFIED]

44: No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him th desire to come to Me; and then I will raise him [from the dead] at the last day.

45: It is written in the book of the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God -- have Him in Person for his teacher. Everyone who has listened and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

46: Which does not imply that anyone has seen the Father -- not that anyone has seen Him -- except He [Who was with the Father] Who comes from God. He [alone] has seen the Father.

47: I assure you, I most solemnly tell you, he who believes in Me -- who adheres to, trusts in, relies on, and has faith in Me -- has (now possesses) eternal life. ********************************************************************** NO MENTION OF BAPTISM. **********************************************************************

This is another instance of a positive statement stating who has eternal life, with no mention of baptism. (This doesn't negate the few which do mention baptism ~ just makes them paradoxical). Which we may not understand until we get our glasses polished ~ through which we now see as 'through a glass darkly'.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

I am reminded of a principle of human behaviour and response that I am still struggling to learn with relation to my wife and children. Too often when I am having an argument with them, I have asked questions that were not "real" questions. They were too loaded and/or really only rhetorical. It was plain from how I phrased the question and especially from other things that I said along with the question that I had already made a judgement as to what the true answer was, and what I thought of it. Sometimes they have even told me, "I don't think it is worth trying to answer, because even if I tell the truth, you won't understand or won't accept it. And you are determined to condemn me, no matter what the answer is, so what's the use?"

Haven't you ever felt that way?

That was the most honest answer I've had in such situations. Other times they have just ignored me or given "snippy" or offensive answers. When I have backed off, and really ASKED pertinent questions, without pre-judging the situation, I have often learned some surprising things that then provided the key to reaching a mutual understanding of the issue under discussion.

The real difference between the way you asked and the way I asked was not in the emphasis on the word "*IF*", though that served a purpose. The real difference was in everything else you said along with it. You asked the question, but stated it in a somewhat "loaded" fashion (see below), then, without waiting for her answer, you gave her a list of scripture references that you felt she is not taking seriously.

(You said, "When you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override those scriptures? What am I to test your personal experience by? The Bible teaches plainly that baptism is connected to salvation, but your personal experience tells you that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation? I must choose the Word...Acts 2:38; 16:22; Rom. 6, Col. 2:12 and I Peter 3:21.")

With that kind of a question and with that baggage attached, what did you expect her to answer?

She could answer, "I prefer to let my personal experiences override the scriptures, rather than the other way round." That is obviously what you believe about her position. But you also obviously disapprove. I suspect it would also go against what she has been taught. (All Evangelical churches that I've had much contact with do teach the primacy of scripture over experience.) And, as it turned out, that is not the truth, because she is willing to accept scripture over experience if she can be adequately convinced that there really is a contradiction. (The "*IF*" in my question to her was intended to assure her that I did understand that at present she doesn't believe there really is a contradiction.)

If she said that she is willing to submit her personal experience to the test of scripture (which she tells me is her true position), you have already shown that you would probably call her a liar, because you don't think she is doing that. So why bother to give an honest and sincere answer when the situation is so "loaded" against her?

You have said that you understand her position and therefore know how to deal with her because you have "been there" yourself. I'll accept your word that you have been there. But remember that individuals are unique.

This is another thing I knew in theory but didn't really understand until I saw it in practice with my kids. I think both of my kids are what today is called "strong-willed". They can be guided and "shaped", if you have enough patience, and I think they have both turned out well. My son graduated last year from Harding University and is now in graduate studies at Michigan State University; my daughter is in her second year at Harding. Both are active in Christian service at their respective universities. I am proud of both of them. But they are extremely different, and the tactics that worked well with one were often disastrous with the other. My wife and I had to learn the best way to deal with each one individually.

The tactics that you (and especially Lee Saffold!) have been using on Connie may have been just what you needed when you had those beliefs. But from what I see in these forums, they are causing her to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm and abuse with abuse; are causing her to use most of her time looking for "proof texts" and arguments to bolster her side against your criticism, rather than really searching for the truth in these passages in their contexts; and are probably hardening her against being persuaded.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

I think Connie is sincere and is open to accepting the truth from the Bible, whatever that turns out to be, but just isn't convinced yet that "our" position is the Biblical truth. However, I switched to writing to her in private (after she first contacted me, privately, about something else) because the sneers we were both getting from others in these fora (forums) were creating too much "static" for a serious dialogue. That being the case, I probably should not have quoted part of our "off-forum" conversation "on-forum", and I don't propose to do it again.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Dear Benjamin:

You can say anything I've said off- or on-forum. You choose your words very carefully and use wisdom and understanding in interpreting them.

(I make one exception to that: The reference to having 'Roast Pastor' for Sunday dinner). ;-) ;-) (And one other ~ I'll let you know which one ~ but I'm sure you can guess).

I have quit so much private e-mailing because of a very busy schedule and because looking up 'proof-texts' and typing them takes a lot of time. I have decided to stick to two to four, as necessary, for the discussion at hand.

Going back over the threads and trying to prove people wrong is tedious and no fun, and I DO like a little fun. (My own personal 'take' on a 'Merry Heart')

Are you sure you didn't also have a few courses in Psychology?

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

"I did say that we are saved by faith alone, (I said it, and I believe it (understanding of course, that that faith is dependant on the shed blood of Christ and death on the cross. ~ I didn't say they were used together in the Scriptures; in other words, I didn't use them in a quote). Of course, when I said that, I knew that repentance has to be involved, also, and there are many verses which include both. Neither of those is a physical act or a 'work'. It is just accepting that one is a sinner and in need of the Savior."

"I would say that those two things are probably simultaneous, and inextricably intertwined. At the very moment of a person's repentance, God provides the propitiation ~ the shed blood of Christ and His death on the cross."

Connie, please tell me if I am understanding your words above correctly...You are saying we are saved by faith alone(faith being dependant on the blood of Christ), BUT...we are also saved by repentance. Basically you can't have one without the other.

Are you saying that without repentance there is no salvation?

Then you say..."Of course, confession is part of the whole plan as is baptism; it's just that nothing except the repentance and faith (virtuously simultaneous) effect (cause); the forgiveness (remission) ~ the not holding one legally accountable for that one's sins."

To clarify again, are you saying that Confession and Baptism follow salvation?

"I did NOT use the words together, as though they were from the Scriptures ~'FAITH ALONE'. I said that in my own words, ~ no quotes ~ to explain what MANY VERSES say. And I have written THOSE out many times, as well."

You say the words "Faith Alone" are not found in the scriptures. But you say you believe many verses say faith alone. Am I correct here?

Again, you do me a disservice by saying, "...you want to disbelieve me and you want to believe Lee. It's dangerous to believe lies, D. Lee."

I am not basing my arguments upon what ANYONE in this forum including E. Lee has said. Please give me enough credit to believe that I can search the scriptures and draw my conclusions from them. When testing the spirits, I do to you and to E. Lee as I do to any other...check what you have to say against the Word. It is our only measuring rod.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

D. Lee:

On April 6th, you asked me to answer this question:

Do you really believe that your sins were forgiven at baptism? Please answer this one.

D. Lee, I believe my sins were forgiven when I believed that Christ had died in my place on the cross, and in so doing, shed His blood. ('Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin' ~ Hebrews 9:22).

Matthew 26:28:

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which [ratifies the agreement and] is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Romans 3:20-28:

20: For no person will be justified -- made righteous, acquitted and judged acceptable -- in His sight by observing the works of the Law. For [the real function of] the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin [not mere perseption, but an acquaintance with sin which works toward repentance, faith and holy character].

21: But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from law, although it is attested by the Law and the prophets,

22: Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing and personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ, the Messiah. [And it is meant] for all who believe.] For there is no distinction,

23: Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and Glory which God bestows and receives.

24: [All] are justified and made upright and in right standing with God, freely and gratuitously by His grace (His unmerited favor and mercy), through the REDEMPTION WHICH IS [PROVIDED] IN CHRIST JESUS,

25: WHOM GOD PUT FORWARD [BEFORE THE EYES OF ALL] AS A MERCY SEAT AND PROPITIATION BY HISBLOOD -- THE CLEANSING AND LIFE-GIVING SACRIFICE OF ATONEMENT AND RECONCILIATION -- [TO BE RECEIVED] THROUGH FAITH. THIS WAS TO SHOW GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS, BECAUSE IN HIS DIVINE FORBEARANCE HE HAD PASSED OVER AND IGNORED FORMER SINS WITHOUT PUNISHMENT.

26: It was to demonstate and prove at the present time (in the now season) that He, Himself is righteous and that He justifies and accepts as righteous him who has true faith in Jesus. ********************************************************************** NO BAPTISM MENTIONED, ONLY FAITH. ********************************************************************** 27: Then what of [our] pride and [our] boasting? It is excluded -- banished, ruled out entirely. On what principle? [On the principle] of good deeds? NO, BUT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF FAITH.

28: For WE HOLD THAT A MAN {C.:person] IS JUSTIFIED AND MADE UPRIGHT BY FAITH INDEPENDENT OF AND DISTINCTLY APART FROM GOOD DEEDS (WORKS OF LAW). -- THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTIFICATION.

29: Or is God merely [the God] of the Jews? Is He not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

30: Since it is one and the same God WHO WILL JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMCISED BY FAITH, [WHICH GERMINATED FROM ABRAHAM] AND THE UNCIRCUMCISED THROUGH THEIR [NEWLY ACQUIRED] FAITH. -- FOR IT IS THE SAME TRUSTING FAITH IN BOTH CASES, A FIRMLY RELYING FAITH [IN JESUS CHRIST]. ********************************************************************** FAITH AND BELIEF, NOT BAPTISM. ********************************************************************** It goes on to relate how that doesn't negate the Law and that Abraham's belief and trust are what was credited to him for righteousness. If Abraham's was, why not ours?!?

And D. Lee: This is said with seriousness and humility, not smirky ridicule: The last I looked, I am a person, not a spirit. I know that E. Lee would like to present me as satan in the flesh, but he is wrong.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Benjamin,

Yes, I understand what you are saying in your first paragraph. And have felt that way at times.

What I want you to know is that I have never condemned Connie. Understanding where someone comes from does not necessarily mean you have condemned them. In my case, it only means that I do know to a point, where she is coming from. I can see why she says what she says, and I can see why she uses the scriptures she does in her defense (the "NO MENTION OF BAPTISM" defense). I can understand, because I have done the same thing. I truly believed what she truly believes.

I have not asked her questions that are not "real" questions or "really only rhetorical". Again this is a forum for discussion of beliefs. It is not always going to be all "flowers and candy" discussions. If Connie, you, or anyone else for that matter do not wish to answer, answers in a "snippy" way, or doesn't answer because someone won't understand or won't accept it...that is their perogitative.

There are certain things I that believe in that Connie condemns. There are certain things that she believes in that I condemn. NOTICE I did not say that Connie condemns ME, and I did not say I condemn HER. The reason for our discussion is to try to get the other to see our point. Just because we do not agree with the other's point does not mean we condemn the other PERSON.

You say, "That was the most honest answer I've had in such situations. Other times they have just ignored me or given "snippy" or offensive answers. When I have backed off, and really ASKED pertinent questions, without pre-judging the situation, I have often learned some surprising things that then provided the key to reaching a mutual understanding of the issue under discussion.

The real difference between the way you asked and the way I asked was not in the emphasis on the word "*IF*", though that served a purpose. The real difference was in everything else you said along with it. You asked the question, but stated it in a somewhat "loaded" fashion (see below), then, without waiting for her answer, you gave her a list of scripture references that you felt she is not taking seriously.

(You said, "When you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override those scriptures? What am I to test your personal experience by? The Bible teaches plainly that baptism is connected to salvation, but your personal experience tells you that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation? I must choose the Word...Acts 2:38; 16:22; Rom. 6, Col. 2:12 and I Peter 3:21.")"

You talk of trying not to pre-judge, then you pre-judge my intentions, you can not tell from this computer screen what my intentions are. You do not know my intent, because you have not asked me my intent.

Would you choose the Word Benjamin over someone else's words if they were in direct conflict with the Word?

Connie, would you do the same?

What I wanted to know (no smoking or even loaded gun here) from Connie, is...when you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures, does your personal experience override the scriptures? NOW that WAS NOT a loaded question as you seem to think Benjamin.

I have family members who believe experience overrides the scriptures. It was an honest question Ben, but you did not know my intent, or why I was asking it.

"With that kind of a question and with that baggage attached, what did you expect her to answer?"

Honestly. Personally, whether I think there is baggage attached or not, I try to answer all questions as honestly as I know how.

Yes she could answer as you say, "I prefer to let my personal experiences override the scriptures, rather than the other way round." Or, she could have answered NO!

Yes it is obvious that I do disapprove of a belief system that would put personal experience before the Word...Why, I was there, It is not Biblical. I asked her the question to see where SHE was coming from. Because Ben, if she would have said as some in my family have said that personal experience overrides the Word, we would have to back up in our conversation and take care of that first. But if she had said, No it doesn't, we have common ground.

You say, "If she said that she is willing to submit her personal experience to the test of scripture (which she tells me is her true position), you have already shown that you would probably call her a liar, because you don't think she is doing that. So why bother to give an honest and sincere answer when the situation is so "loaded" against her?"

First of all, as to your above quote, she may have told you that, but SHE did not tell me that even though I asked honestly.

I must cry foul...again you are misjudging me. Have I ever called her or anyone a liar? You have no idea what I would have said.

Why bother to give an honest and sincere answer when the situation is so "loaded" against her you ask? In my case (I can speak for no other) I would try to give one because that is what Christ would want me to do. It is part of being prepared to make a defense as the Bible says. What purpose would there be in giving a dishonest or insincere answer here? NONE...it only confuses.

You are correct, individuals are unique, and that should be taken into account in our dealings with each other...that is why I ask the questions...I am trying to see more clearly how to deal with Connie. On the other hand, I am not debating with a child here, and Connie has spoken her mind just as much as any other in this forum, just as you have.

Finally you say: "The tactics that you (and especially Lee Saffold!) have been using on Connie may have been just what you needed when you had those beliefs. But from what I see in these forums, they are causing her to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm and abuse with abuse; are causing her to use most of her time looking for "proof texts" and arguments to bolster her side against your criticism, rather than really searching for the truth in these passages in their contexts; and are probably hardening her against being persuaded."

I try to very seldom used sarcasm in my discussions with people anymore...I find it tends to bring the argument to a screeching halt. And where have I been abusive?

As to my tactics...you may not agree with them...but you have misunderstood them, and my intent. This has been discussed before and even you agree that different tactics are BIBLICAL. It comes down to a personal decision on what tactic to use and when to use it. If I have criticized, which I do indeed believe I have, it has been a criticism of Connie's BELIEFS, and not her personally. Please understand that.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

D. Lee:

Since I made that statement about beliveing we are saved by faith alone, I have had a slight change in my perception. I have also stated that innummerable times, but perhaps not concisely enough. I will try again:

I now believe that only Christ's shed blood, death and resurrection can save me. I appropriate it by repenting of my sins (being sorry for them) and believing in the capability of Christ's sacrifice for me. I then want to obey every instruction he has given, including confession and baptism.

The rate at which we obey may differ, just as some children obey more quickly than others. The thing is, I was not being disobedient in waiting to be baptized. In fact, I believed we should be. I was in prayer about it for my husband to come to the belief that he should be.

Our baptisms were very meaningful and deeply satisfying. What others may think about it really doesn't concern me. We were Christians when we first believed, three years earlier. Our whole lives were completely changed at THAT time.

Fortunately, God is forbearing and knew that we would come to that place, in His omniscience.

Acts 16:30-34:

30: And he brought them out [of the dungeon] and said, Men, what is it necessary for me to do that I may be saved?

31: And they answered, Believe in and on the Lord Jesus Christ -- that is, give yourself up to Him, take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping, and you will be saved; [and this applies both to] you and your household as well.

32: And they declared the Word of the Lord [that is the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God] to him and to all who were in his house.

33: And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members] of his [household.]

From my understanding of the reading of this verse, the jailer took Paul and those with him to have their wounds washed and was baptized at the same time.

It doesn't say Paul insisted on it.

The wording implies that not everyone is baptized so quickly; Paul wasn't ~ it was several days before he was. Paul was a believer from the moment he asked the Lord who He was, on the Road to Damascus, after his blinding. Paul was immediately obedient.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

I didn't finish my thought.

He was obedient immediately, but was not baptized until several days later.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

You guys sound like bullies to me.

(Mat 18:6 KJV) "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Most of you probably preach..."We are saved by the Blood of Christ."

But the Word of God says...(Rom 5:10 KJV) "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE."

It is evident by the following Scriptures that one who is wondering about the basics of Christianity is a BABE. You bully boys keep attacking Connie as if you were defending the faith.

(Heb 5:12 KJV) "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."

(Heb 5:13 KJV) "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."

(Heb 5:14 KJV) "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

(Heb 6:1 KJV) "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

(Heb 6:2 KJV) "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

(Heb 6:3 KJV) "And this will we do, if God permit."

Think about it.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

Hello, Mark:

I agree that this question is elemental and we should have gone on to more advanced questions, but all here seem to want to get hung up on baptism.

Let's all keep praying that God's Word will penetrate our hearts and minds so that we can serve Him more completely.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

You now have the longest standing record for "Conversations with Self" on this board.

Johnny Olson.....tell her what she's won!!

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), March 31, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

At least it's quiet in here. ;-)

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 31, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Galatians 4:9-12: [AMPLIFIED] It goes on to say (in vs. 9-12 and on) that we are not to return to elementary things where we insist on legalisms, which we have been freed from, enumerating some of them. We are free in Christ! His Spirit, if we are in Him, is in our hearts.

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed has to agree with what is written in God's word.

I pray we can start listening to each other, and hearing each other.

Having been gifted with Eternal Life, and that life is in His Son, and God the Father has gifted me with the Holy Spirit of His Son into my heart. May He do the same for you. Praise His Holy Name.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 28, 2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed HAS TO AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN IN GOD'S WORD.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), April 01, 2000.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Dear Sister Muse,

I have looked again at the message from me that you were responding to, the one from you that I was responding to when I wrote it, and some of the other relevant postings from both of us. And I have tried, to the best of my ability, to reconstruct what I was thinking and feeling when I wrote my various messages.

I think it is possible that I was judging your motives and intention (though no more than I felt you were judging me -- and no more accurately -- in some things you have said in response to some of my messages -- more so on one or two of the other threads than in this one). I should not have been so quick to judge, and I apologise.

You have been much more moderate in what you have said than some of the others in this forum. As far as I could see in a cursory scan through a couple of threads, you have not, yourself, accused her of lying. The problem is that some of these threads have gotten so long that it is hard to remember (especially when you only see the words and not the faces of the people saying them) which person said which thing. So it is too easy to group people together into "sides". (If, like me, you are trying not to "take sides" you may even find yourself criticised by "both sides.") At least one on the "side" I have associated you with HAS repeatedly accused Connie of lying, and I guess I thought you would do the same if you "caught her out" on this question.

I think this may be a good place to point out that none of us can possibly know what is really in the heart of someone else. We know what we are told, and we know what impression we get from what is said, how it is said, the circumstances in which it is said, etc. Even though I probably was judging your intentions in what I said, I have looked back at what I was responding to -- the first place where you asked Connie whether she chose to let her experience override the Scriptures or the Scriptures override her experience.

Knowing now what you have said since then, I might write what I said more cautiously and more moderately. But it still APPEARS to be a loaded question. You tell us, immediately after the question, what you think the "right" answer is. You say, "When" (not "if") you find yourself in conflict with the scriptures ...." -- which strongly suggests that you think this is the case. (As you pointed out, we all find our views in conflict with the scriptures at some point -- but this was said in the context of a discussion in which most of the people in the forum have told her that they think her views are unscriptural, and you follow with some of the verses we have all been using to show this.)

I wonder about your relatives. Have they actually TOLD you that they believe their experience overrides the Scriptures, or is that your interpretation of their behaviour? I've never met anyone who claims to be a Christian who actually believes that. I know many who INTERPRET the Scriptures in some odd ways to keep their experiences from being in conflict with the Scriptures, but that is a very different thing from actually believing that experience overrides Scripture. It shows that they do realise that Scripture must have precedence, but they are unwilling to let go of the experience, so they re-interpret Scripture to make it fit.

Back to what I was saying about impressions. Since people cannot know our hearts, all they have to go on is the IMPRESSION they get from what we say, how we say it, the circumstances, etc. And the impression may not always be a true one. This being the case, I find it helpful sometimes to either let my wife read things before I send them or wait a day or so after writing before sending them -- neither of which I have actually done with more than a couple of the postings in this forum, so I guess I have myself to blame if I too have created a misleading impression at times.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Benjamin:

I am reading all of Acts (again) and then will read James (again) since those are the books upon which a lot of the positions here on this forum on baptism and works seem to be based.

Last evening I read through Chapter 15 in Acts, and will complete it today. (If the Lord is willing).

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Mark H.:

You wrote above:

Most of you probably preach..."We are saved by the Blood of Christ."

But the Word of God says...(Rom 5:10 KJV) "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE."

I wanted to re-read that passage, for of course, it also is true.

Romans 5:9-11,& 17: [AMPLIFIED]

9: Therefore, we are now justified -- acquitted, made righteous and brought into right relationship with God -- by Christ's blood , how much more [certain is it that] we shall be saved by Him from the indignation and wrath of God.

10: For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved [daily delivered from sin's dominion] through His [resurrection] life.

11: Not only so, but we also rejoice and exultingly glory in God [His love and perfection] through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received and enjoy [our] reconciliation.

And:

17: For if, because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness putting them into right standing with Himself) reign as kings in life through the One, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One.

********************************************************************** NO MENTION OF BAPTISM **********************************************************************

We are saved by both His death and His life! (Resurrection) AND NEVER BY OUR FILTHY RAGS OF GOOD WORKS. Praise Him and what He has done for us.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Benjamin and others:

The verses which stood out for me in my study, but which I am not going to type out, except for those which are especially notable:

Acts 1:5; Acts 2:16 {In the AMPLIFIED: the time mentioned is THE BEGINNING OF THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN OF BY JOEL. We are still in that [end-time] period, the Church age. IMHO}; Acts 2:38: {I have (and you have) repeated this verse many times. I think it may be your capstone verse, but I see it somewhat differently than you do.}

Acts 2:38: [AMPLIFIED]

And Peter answered them, Repent -- change your views, and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it -- and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF AND RELEASE FROM YOUR SINS; AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

To me, this is a figure of the ONE BAPTISM ~ into the NAME OF JESUS, AND ALL THAT IMPLIES ~ HIS DEATH, SHED BLOOD, RESURRECTION; WITHOUT WHICH, THERE IS NO REMISSION FOR SIN. It is in water, to be sure, but that is because of the symbolism of dying to self, being buried and being raised to new life. IMHO.

This is one of the few verses we will probably never agree on, unless the Holy Spirit changes one of our minds.

That passage goes on to mention that the early believers sold all that they owned and had everything in common. We don't do that ~ or do you?; and there are other things we don't do: wash each others' feet, unless you do (I asked that on one of the threads, but never got an answer);

To go on: Acts 3:19,20; Acts 4:4; Acts 4:12; Acts 5:14; Acts 8:12,13; {This is another place where I know you feel that it is saying one HAS to be baptized immediately; I don't see it that way. I see: Believe; be baptized, a particular sequence.

I leave my outcome and salvation to God's mercy; He has always been merciful to me. After all, I HAVE BEEN immersed, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I feel that if anyone here believes that their baptism is what saved them, and not their belief in the shed blood, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that one is not a Christian.}

Acts 8:35-37; Acts 10:45-48:

45: And the believers from among the circumcised [the Jews] who came with Peter were surprised and amazed, because the free gift of the Holy Spirit had been bestowed and poured out largely even on the Gentiles.

46: For they heard them talking in [unknown] languages and extolling and magnifying God. Then Peter asked,

47: Can anyone forbid or refuse water for baptizing these people, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? ********************************************************************** THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED; THEY WERE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THAT. HOW LONG? IT DOESN'T SAY, SO YOU AND I DON'T KNOW. ********************************************************************** Before these verses there is one which is extremely important; Acts 10:43:

43: To Him all the prophets testify (bear witness) that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM -- WHO ADHERES TO, TRUSTS IN, AND RELIES ON HIM, GIVING HIMSELF UP TO HIM -- RECEIVES FORGIVENESS OF SINS THROUGH HIS NAME. ********************************************************************** THROUGH HIS NAME AND ALL THAT IMPLIES; NO BAPTISM MENTIONED **********************************************************************

I must stop for now.

In His Name,

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Connie,

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with salvation. As a matter of fact, if you look at Acts 11:13-15 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning."

Cornelius was told to send for Peter, and Peter would tell them how to be saved. In Acts 10, as Peter began speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon the household. It wasn't until the household finished that Peter said, in vv.47 48 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Why, after the household had been baptized by the Holy Spirit would Peter tell them to go thru a symbol of what had already happened to them?

Connie, I understand dbvz's understanding of baptism because his god is irrational. And that suits him fine. But you are, correctly so, examining the Scriptures, but you seem to have your mind made up and are constantly finding ways of dancing around the obvious meanings of the Word.

Baptism is not a work that earns our salvation. It is one of the conditions laid down by the Scriptures to enter into the covenant with Jesus. It is no more and no less a work than is belief, repentance and confession. Baptism has symbolism involved, but it is much more than that.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I think thats where we need to get to, and where we're missing the point: Baptism is one of the conditions of entering into the covenant. In modern Christianity, we have totally lost the concept of what a covenant is, much less that we are supposed to be in one.

When I took a year at Pacific Christian College, I had a class called "Covenant Theology" taught by Montana Smith (I always think of him when I see an Indiana Jones movie LOL). He taught us that every covenant had three things in common:

1. The parties involved,
2. The terms by which the parties were to enter into the covenant, and
3. The promises that would accrue to each party within the covenant relationship.

We are really (without probably knowing it) debating on what the terms are by which we are to enter into this new covenant relationship with God.

It might behoove someone who is not familiar with covenants to do some research in this area before moving forward. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on where to go, what books would be good to read, to do that research. Any suggestions?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I don't have a positive recommendation on this, but I would like to put out a strong negative one. At all costs, avoid any teaching about covenants that comes from John Hagee. He's big into them, but you would do well to steer clear.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I would have to say "amen" to that, as he is in with the Word-Faith crowd.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

"What the Bible Says About Covenants" published by College Press is excellent (do not remember the authors) and "The Blood Covenant" published by Kregel publications. I can remember publishers but not the authors. Can you tell I used to work in books?

I'm beat, goodnight!

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly about the Hagee comments.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Connie

I think I have read everything posted for the last few months now.I do admire you for hanging in there.

Let me say up front that I am in agreement with Sam,Scott,Lee,Mark W,Danny and others In their understanding of scripture.

I have learned much because of your willingness to take a stand for what you believe. I have not had the opportunity to hear so much from someone who feels baptism is not a necessary part of the plan of salvation.

There is an excellent book,(Commentary on Act's) by Garreth Reese. It contains many special studies. Some are, baptism, hell, tongues,the Lords Supper and many more. I am not an intellectually gifted person. Therefore I appreciate the simple manner in which this book is written.

If you would read it, I would like to purchase it and have it sent to you. I think you would enjoy it. I would ask that when you are done with it that you pass it on to another.

I tried to contact you by Email but was unable to do so. You can contact me at, (fsweet8@yahoo.com)

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Hi, Faris,

If you agree with all of those, I imagine you also agree with Benjamin, who started this thread. (I have A LOT of respect for Benjamin.)

May I ask where all of you went to school?

I never mind reading the material of a given philosophy, or Christian position, with which I may or may not agree. That's why I'm re- reading a synopsis on Calvin's 'Institutes of the Christian Religion'.

The whole treatise is two thick volumes, which I read when I was a relatively new Christian, many years ago, and which I can't find now.

I always thought that I was the opposite of a Calvinist, being a former Baptist (now simply a Christian); but Calvin was not all wrong. (And not at all satanic). dbvz has it right: Calvin got most of it right.

Alexander Campbell probably got most of it right, also, but not all. I think everyone here, just to be sure how much you disagree with him, and think his position to be satanic, could benefit from reading his own words.

By the way, on another thread, I mentioned going to our monthly Gideon's meeting and didn't realize that our meetings are held at a Church of Christ college: Great Lakes Bible College (which has just recently changed its name to: Great Lakes CHRISTIAN College).

Many years ago, when I was president of our Mothers' Fellowship at our Christian School, I knew a board member from that college: Oren Huffman. I loved both Oren and his wife, Dorothy. They were wonderful Christian people and hard workers, and whenever we needed help, they were right there to help. We never thought of what church people attended, as long as they were Christians.

Also, I just realized that one of my son's best friends and his parents (who started at the school after I took some material to their home) went to the South Lansing Church of Christ, and they were very active and helpful at the school, also. Their names are John and Bonna (Bonnie) Roberts and have owned paint and wallpaper stores in the Lansing area for many years. (Now retired).

My son went with them to their cottage several times in his childhood and youth, and was best man at Jim's wedding.

Division is not necessary if we are believers in Christ's all- sufficient shed blood, death and resurrection.

Without Faith, it is impossible to please Him.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Connie,

You said, "Division is not necessary if we are believers in Christ's all- sufficient shed blood, death and resurrection."

Unfortunately, you and I have very different views of what that belief is, and all that it entails.

I have a question...Do you believe because a verse (or several verses) does not mention a specific thing...that specific thing is negated?

Example: John 3:16 NO MENTION OF REPENTANCE. Does this mean repentance is not valid Biblically?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Connie

Yes on Benjamin. Our attitudes are also somewhat similar.

Education = I was asked to not come back to high school. I was a jerk. G.E.D. at age 30. Then some hours at Mid South and St. Louis Christian college. About 2 years worth. Just enough to realize I really don't know much. After 20 years as a cop, more hours in police related classes than I care to remember.

My daughter and son-in-law are members at South Lansing CC/COC. My wife and I have visited there a couple times. What a great group. I believe they are going to build again in the near future. Part of the Roberts family may be members of Duanes congregation. I have heard some excellent messages there.

Is that a yes on the Garreth Reese book.

Again,I tried to reach you by Email but was unable to do so. (fsweet@yahoo.com)

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

D. Lee:

I read only the Scriptures for my doctrine, and then weigh everything else against that.

If one were to study about Calvin by studying only from Calvin's detractors, one comes up with one view; If one reads what Calvin himself says, very likely one comes up with another view.

I am always suspicious of any view which downgrades an obvious believer's position by calling him 'satanic' or evil or a cruel monster. Calvin may have been wrong on a few things, but he was a true believer.

The same with Alexander Campbell, the other Campbell and ?? Stone. They were believers who chose certain verses to support their position and with which few Christians agree. They also erred: witness Stone's position that Christ was not God.

If we really want to know what those men believed, we have to read THEIR books, or writings, not a detractor's NOR a proponent's.

Where we can agree, presumably, is on the shed blood, death and resurrection of Christ to die in our (my) place for our (my) sins.

It becomes divisive when people cannot agree on anything beyond that. For example, I believe Duane (or Darrell) asked me if I believed that obedience is necessary for salvation. The only obedience that is, is that we must believe in His propitiation for our (my) sins.

We all disobey Him every day and do not lose our salvation, or even fellowship with Him, if we repent, confess, and turn away from that sin.

In the verses I quoted on the Law, there were at least two places where 'law' was not capitalized, meaning generic 'law', not the Mosaic Law.

I leave it to God to determine whether you are a believer or not, and you cannot know if I am, except for the fruit I bear.

Faris:

Are you a male or a female? The reason I ask is because I didn't realize you might be male; forgive me if I have offended you.

When You say some of the Roberts family might be members of Duane's church, what 'Duane' is that?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Faris,

I didn't read your last note before posting the last time, and I see that you are male. So I am sorry for not realizing that 'Faris' is a male name.

Did you get my e-mail? I sent it as 'Reply to Author' (.edu) and not to your Yahoo #; I'm sorry; that's the way I reply if a letter is not too long; also if not a foreign country. I have a little friend in Brazil who lived here for a couple of years and when I would 'Reply to Author' it didn't get to her; so when I do it under 'Compose', it works. I read too quickly and responded before reading your note carefully; (a bad habit I have to change).

Did you get my e-mail yet? It shows here that it went, and didn't come back as undeliverable.

D. Lee:

I don't know if discussing our differences is going to change either one's mind. I think now that we just need to read and pray and be willing to change if so led.

If you want to think I am an unbeliever, that is your privilege. I have made no such judgment about you. I leave that to God. I think this forcing to conform (by withdrawing fellowship) is unproductive.

If people won't listen to the Gospel, and reject Christ, yes, after a couple of warnings, one is to shake the dust from his/her feet, and go on to the next town.

We had that lesson driven home particularly when we visited Avila, a walled city in Spain. The namesake of Mother Theresa, Theresa of Avila, left the city (governed by the Roman Catholic Church) and at a site overlooking the city, took off her sandals, shook the dust from her feet and left her homeand the church she loved.

The reason? Because the church wouldn't obey the Gospel and adhere to Christ alone. They later, of course, made a whole movement around her, but rejected her when she was alive. She probably wouldn't like the fact that they started doing obeisance to her instead of to Christ. They even built a fancy memorial at the site where she left her sandals.

The church where she worshipped and worked as a poor peasant girl now has crowns of jewels and very valuable trappings in memory of her. I wonder what she would feel if she knew.

Francis of Asissi also would probably not like a whole movement to be created around his name, either.

O.T., but something to think about: To not place people or what people teach or say above what the Scriptures teach or say. And to not claim people say or think or do what they do not. (Bear false witness against one's neighbor.)

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Connie

That was funny. Honest, I am a man. In my 20 years as a cop I have used many disguises but never considered trying to pass myself off as female. 6'1" & 220lbs. High heels and a purse! What a picture. I certainly do not take offense. Each week I deal with 25 to 50 very angry people. I have learned to accept comments, anger and bitterness without always responding in like manner. I know you did not intend to offend.

Many years ago I had a very nasty temper. I prayed for patience and compassion for others. The Lord gave me a learning experence that taught me these things. I became a cop.

Ben asked, am I more interested in winning the debate or the person. I (debated) with my mom and dad about baptism for almost 30 years. As I have said before, I believe immersion is a part of the plan of salvation. My wife, daughter and I prayed all those years for them. At age 77 my dad was baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. We buried him a few months later. I sleep well at night.

Was he won by debate. If debate in this case was my taking a firm biblical stance I would have to say that debate, great love, prayer and a loving, compassionate, patient God placed my dad with my Father for eternity. Mom also was immersed at that time. Ain't God good.

In review. Debate as a firm biblical stance. Yes. The church needs the Scott's, Lee's, Danny, Mark with their agressive attacks on false teaching that pops up frequently. And seems to soon disappear when challenged.

The church needs Ben, Sam, John, Men with the same firm stand, great biblical knowledge, but a much different approach to debate.

What we do not need is more ( can't we just all get along) doctrine. Love is still the greatest gift. Faithfulness to the word : a must. Jn. 12:48

Connie. It is my bed time so I need to go and remove my makeup and take off these pantyhose. Does (Faris) really sound like a girl?

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Woody Harrelson from Cheers, on the adage that you can win more flies with honey than with vinegar:

"Yeah, but I've found that a dead squirrel works better than anything else."

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Your name actually always reminded me of Ferris Bueller, the smart- alek slacker from the movie.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Who me? Or Faris Sweet?

If me, the description fits me well.

And, it actually is my day off.

And if you are referring to me, than I would be remiss in my smart-alekkyness not to mention that your post reminds me of the old sour puss, Frank Burns, of M.A.S.H.

If you meant "Faris" Sweet, I have met him, and he is more of a gentle man, perhaps a cross between Radar and Hawkeye.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

I meant Faris, of course.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Faris:

This is going to be difficult to explain without offending SOMEONE.

In another thread, your response was so humble and kind that I didn't think it was from a male, simply because of the posters I had been observing. (Only a couple). Actually, though, it was from the kind of person I would compare with Jesus, ~ firm, yet gentle and kind. And someone who is 6'1" and 220 lbs. can afford to be that way.

I know how witnessing to beloved family is. Even though we have a different position on baptism, I understand because I have family members for whom I've been praying for 42 years, now (In May).

Sometimes (rarely, now) when I lose patience with them, I say they are smarter than God. (At least they think so).

My thoughts and prayers are with all of you; In Christ,

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Thankfully, my name is John. :P

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

To Connie,

Amazing, Connie you are still here and at it (?)!

I wonder, is all this talk of any benefit to you or your walk with the Lord?

On one hand I applaud you for sharing the truth, on the other hand are you wasting your time?

I have found that my time is too valuable to be wasting here (IMO). I will never believe in adding to Christ's work and those here will never believe that I am born again. What is the sense? I found another wonderful forum where I posted a thread on "The Simple Gospel Message" and was able to share the Gospel with a fellow who ended up going to church on Sunday and placing his faith in Jesus Christ! How awesome is that? Being instrumental in the salvation of a soul, instead of beating a dead horse here!

I will keep you in my prayers! May you experience the overwhelming love of Jesus today my sister.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Barry,

I guess it depends on your perspective. If, in fact God's Word is true, and man's response to His grace depends on more than mere Gnosto-mystic "acceptance in my heart", than the gentlemen whom you gush about is still lost in his sins, as are you...

And yet another brick would be added to the road of good intentions.

Connie, to her credit, understands the "stakes" involved, and is willing, like the Bereans to continue to search the Scriptures for herself to see whether these things are true.

I know of D.Lee Muse and a lady named Cynthia, among many others in this Forum, including myself (and Danny) who have amended their views in varying degrees, and found it to be an opportunity for spiritual growth and knowledge of His word.

Others, on the other hand, have, like the Pharisees of old, resisted God's truth with stubborn and stiff-necked hearts.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Exactly why this is a waste of time!

Inferring that I am "like the Pharisees of old, resisted God's truth with stubborn and stiff-necked hearts".

I have searched and continue to search just as the Bereans. In fact I have found the truth, His name is Jesus, He said He is The Way, The Truth and The Life! Seeing that you believe you have found the truth I guess you are as stiff-necked as anyone else especially me : )

I have posted in this forum many times, and for the most part my points are not taken seriously, I continue to examine the handful of phrases (pulled from context) that you folks continually echo, yet the multitude of Scripture presented by myself and more so by Connie are swept under the rug of. How we "meet the blood in baptism" is as foreign to me as it is to the Holy Scriptures.

Never will I ever preach a gospel of works for conversion inferring that Jesus' tremendous sacrifice was insufficient. I could never complete His death, only participate by faith in the completed work of Jesus Himself. Praise the Lord I have been purchased by the blood of the lamb by grace through faith!

Simply,

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Hi, Barry!

It's good to see your name again!

I believe if people really want to be freed from the bonds that earlier insufficient scholarship afforded them, God will enlighten them.

After all, the people here (whom I consider wonderful ~ and who are Christians) can change their minds also, if they search the Scriptures and seek the Truth with their whole hearts.

Even they mentioned a whole denomination which turned from its cultic position. (Not that I consider the CoC a cult ~ I don't). I believe that they have a little bit wrong, as did Calvin, Luther, and Wesley.

They've all been strongly indoctrinated and apparently Jack Cottrell was quite charismatic, as Alexander Campbell must have been. I don't hold that against any of them; they brought their people out of extreme error and just happened to keep a little of it.

We need to pray for each other and not denigrate anyone. I even miss ol' E.Lee. I can change my mind in response to the Holy Spirit's instruction, through the agency of the Scriptures, if He so leads me.

The discussions here have 'jelled' my thinking concerning the only way for anyone to be saved. (Which I have stated ad infinitum, so I don't need to repeat it again.

Danny and E. Lee are contending for the faith as they see it, as are we. If our goal is not to just 'be right' we will be blessed with a more sure knowledge of our faith.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Sister Connie,

Without a doubt I understand how well organized your thoughts become when contending for the faith! I must admit I have become quite sharp at discerning that spirit of error when speaking with people face to face.

As far as being a Christian, if one has truly placed their faith in Jesus as opposed to their own works I agree, but this is what makes this "gospel" so devious, are they trusting Jesus or their own obedience? Indeed it is frightening and not a position I ever want to find myself.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Welcome back, Barry.

My trust is most definitely in Jesus. One reason I put my trust in Jesus is because he is trustworthy -- I know he keeps his promises.

Acts 2:36-39 --

"Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, 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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off -- for all whom the Lord our God will call."

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

(I think that is more than just a "handfull of phrases, pulled out of context.")

Please note what I already called attention to in an earlier thread: the Greek phrase "EIS APHESIN HAMARTION" ("for the remission of sins") used in Acts 2:38, is exactly the same phrase Jesus used at the last supper when he said his blood was "poured out for many for the remission of sins".

If Acts 2:38 does not mean that the purpose of being baptised is to have sins forgiven, then neither was that the purpose of Christ pouring out his blood. In that case, I wonder why He did it?

Concerning the relationship of physical acts on our part with God's grace, please see the rather lengthy explanation I posted on April 11 in the "Creeds Divide" thread.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

I doubt if Barry Hanson is still around to read this. He seems to like to "hit and run." However, for the record, I would like to respond to another of his statements, above, which I missed when I first read his recent postings to this thread.

On April 14, Barry Hanson said,

"Never will I ever preach a gospel of works for conversion inferring that Jesus' tremendous sacrifice was insufficient. I could never complete His death, only participate by faith in the completed work of Jesus Himself. Praise the Lord I have been purchased by the blood of the lamb by grace through faith!"

This is a monstrous perversion of what most of us in the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches believe. I wonder if Barry should even attempt to critique our beliefs and practices when it is obvious that he understands them so little.

I don't know of anyone who would suggest that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient or that our being immersed is needed to "complete" what Christ has already accomplished. Our faith, repentance, and immersion are simply the "terms of acceptance" that Christ himself demands of those who want to accept the new covenant or "peace treaty" that he has paid for and now offers to us. Baptism is our "rite of initiation" into an exclusive fraternity for which Christ has already paid the membership dues for us. Regarding how grace may be both free and conditional, I'd suggest reading the parable of the wedding garment, Matthew 22:1-14.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000