I was wondering if anyone here has heard from Lee Saffold. I just sent a letter via E-mail and my Email was immediately returned. It appears that this address is no longer in service. As I remember, Jay Wilson accepted the challenge of debate concerning the instruments in "worship", and through another person offered a debate proposition. After which Mr. Saffold disappeared. Hopefully nothing has happened to him, and if all is well with you Mr. Saffold please tell us if you intend to engage in debate. This to me personally does appear that since you found someone to debate you on this issue, you abandoned ship. Or it would seem in other terms, when it came to action.... from you....only silence! But as I see it the instrument is not the issue but a biblical definition of what " worship" and "service" are, it seems to have invoked this silence. This debate sorta reminds me of debating the mechanics of Pre-millenialism, having never defined the "kingdom".

Now I have been wrong before, so if all that I said is not the case, then great! Come let us reason together! And if you Mr saffold never get this post, I am sure that there are many Non-instrumentals or any other for that matter lurking that might like to engage in this debate subject, please let me know and we can arrange the details. Thanks! MIKE

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

Answers

Mike....

It is very "unwholesome talk" and "unedifying speech" to try to goad someone into a discussion/debate by making assumptions about the character of their resolve.

Things are not always what they seem....and in this case....far more than they seem.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

No problem Mike....but your tone and your language was "unwholesome" and "unedifying" and you know what the Scriptures say about such things.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

AKelley......

Please point out the specific scriptures where Pauls indicates there are two types of tongues.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

AKelley....

I do find it amusing that you toutly reject the theology that sees "the perfect" as the completed Word of God because it is too "conjectural"....and yet....your theology is based upon a "plausible" and unsubstantiated view of "two languagues." (Unsubstantiated, of course, except by charismatic thelogians....which is a contradiction in terms.)

I laid a challenge out months ago which no one to this day has answered.

1 Corinthians 14 is extremely clear about the purpose of tongue speaking. Most people in the pew can pick it up immediately if you point it out to them.

But before I would discuss that, I laid out a challenge which no one has answered. I'll give you another shot.

Give me one....just one single instance in the N.T. of tongue speaking taking place where there WERE NOT unbelieving Jews present.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

I have to admitt a closer examination when I got Lee's address in one of the threads it either copied wrong or the address was typed wrong and I picked it up that way, although I did look for the error in the address being typed and could find none. So for the E-mail being returned to me was my fault. But the lack or intentions and correspondence still leaves me wondering. Considering Lee's post which I quote "I accept Brother Jay Wilson's gracious offer and will contact you via e-mail to make the arrangements. Please be aware that Brother Jack Prentice has already accepted the offer but this is no reason why I should not agree to discuss it with Brother Wilson also. I am happy to do so for we all may have the opportunity to have a good thorough organized and complete discussion of this subject from which all may benefit great. At least that is my sincere prayer." MIKE

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

Lee has been in the 'do you allow emotions in worship?' thread recently.

If youw ant to debate the instrument issue, why not just debate it online? There is a thread on that issue on this board right now.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

Link,

I think you started contributing to this forum AFTER the big "debates" with Lee Saffold about "debating" the issue of instrumental music. So unless you have been researching the archives, you may not know the history of this.

As far as I know, Bro. Lee is the only one of the "a-capella music only" persuasion who regularly participates in this forum. The question of the use of instrumental music in worship came up several times in the past, and Bro. Lee was usually quick to say that it was "not authorised" and that therefore we should not use it. But whenever anyone tried to argue with him about this, he would always say that he would not discuss it further except in the context of a formal "debate" with a clear proposition agreed to by both sides, with the number of formal participants limited, and with clear rules agreed to by both sides.

We had quite a long "debate" (with myself one of the main ones arguing against him) about whether or not it was appropriate of fair to insist on that in this forum. One of my personal objections was that I think a formal debate would tend to polarise further, rather than to bring us together, which should be our goal. A couple of people finally agreed to have a formal debate with him, and they were supposedly discussing among themselves and with Duane what the rules would be.

Meanwhile, someone (Danny, I think) suggested that we go ahead and start a parallel "informal" discussion of the issues without waiting for the formal debate. Bro. Lee misunderstood and thought we were trying to draw him into it and force him to abandon his position. We finally all agreed that anyone who wants to can start or participate in a discussion on the issue, and will NOT expect Bro. Lee to participate. Since then he has not said anything more about the subject.

There have been several attempts since then by various people (including yourself) to start threads on this and related issues, but they have all "fizzled." I think that basically all or almost all of us in this forum except for Bro. Lee are already pretty much in agreement on this issue, so without his participation there is nothing to debate.

I have been wondering myself if anyone -- Jack? Lee? Duane? -- could give us an update on the state of preparation for the debate. I would like to see the issue thoroughly discussed, and while I still feel that an actual "debate" is a mistake, I'd rather see it discussed that way than not at all.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

All I am interested in is if this debate that was graciously accepted by Lee earlier in June is going to proceed. He has contacted or mentioned anything since a proposition was mailed to him. And I have seen nothing on the debate with Jack Pretentice and was wondering what happened.

MIKE

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Hey folks,

Lee emailed this to me YESTERDAY.... but I failed to post it in a timely manner:

Duane:

I am forwarding this e-mail to you because I just received it today and I was trying to put my response on the forum but I cannot get on the server.

If you happen to be able to get on the server would you please copy and past this attachment which is my response on whatever thread this Brother put his nonsense onto. I will keep trying but I will be in meetings all day tomorrow and will not have the opportunity to give a prompt response because of it.

I hope that you do not mind doing this for me but if you do not deem it appropriate I will try again tommorrow night.

Thanks,

E. Lee Saffold

Brother Mike:

Mr. Jay Wilson accepted the challenge to debate this subject after Brother Jack Prentice had already agreed to debate the matter. I accepted Brother Jay Wilsons offer to debate the subject even after having agreed to debate it with Brother Jack Prentice. Therefore your assumption that I have merely forgotten about debating Brother Jay Wilson because I afterward found someone to debate the subject with me is absurd.

Mr. Wilson did not personally accept this challenge; rather he did it through his intermediary, Keith Cooper. I accepted his challenge to debate this subject with the provision that I would debate Brother Jack first.

I wrote to Brother Keith Cooper the following:

Brother Cooper:

I am very pleased to have someone who is willing to debate this subject with me without constantly criticizing me for even suggesting such a thing. I will be the one with who he would debate and I am more than happy to negotiate the details and make arrangements for a formal debate on this subject. I would sincerely hope that we would meet as Christians with a sincere desire to follow the will of Christ in all things. I am at my workplace at the moment and cannot write much. I only want indicate that I have received your acceptance of debate on behalf of Brother Jay Wilson and I am sending to you my acceptance of his offer to meet in this forum or anywhere else that we agree suitable to debate this issue.

Since I am at my place of employment, I will write more when I get home.

My e-mail address at home is gdragon@mindspring.com and my home phone number is **********. I have said all that I can say in this forum before engaging in a formal debate. I appreciate very much Brother Wilson's sincere willingness to discuss this issue. I would very much like to work with someone concerning the propositions that will be prompt in responding to my correspondence and the making of arrangements for the debate.

I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you and Brother Wilson. Please express to him my sincere appreciation for his acceptance and my prayers for his travels and his work he is presently doing.

Please feel free to call me or send me an e-mail as you wish concerning this matter. I would really appreciate a verbal conversation occasionally which we could then confirm in writing via e-mail etc. This would speed up the process a little.

Please note, however that Brother Jack Prentice has accepted also but this in no way would prevent my also discussing it with Brother Jay Wilson also.

So let's talk.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

I believe that Brother Cooper may have tried to call me once while I was out of town but I did not have his return phone number. Prior to his call I received the following e-mail from him:

Thank you Mr. Saffold for your prompt and polite response. I have noticed a tendency in the forum posts to perform, as it were, microscopic surgery on words and phrases used whenever someone writes clearly and definitively.

I was unable to call you this evening because I had a wedding rehearsal and did not return from the evenings events until late. I am forwarding a copy of your e-mail to Mr. Wilson and will be considering a tentative proposition and debate guidelines for the next couple days so I can send them to you.

Please send me yours as well and we should be able to forge a positive, edifying format in which to reason together. I appreciate your candor and look forward to the formal debate which is to come. The art of true debate is lost to our present generation for the most part. Therefore, a secondary benefit of this debate will be, indeed, to educate a "lurking" audience as to the truly communicative and reasonable means of discussing an issue thoroughly and intelligently. Of course the primary benefit of the debate will be to come to a knowledge of the truth.

May God bless you also.

For Mr. Wilson,

Keith

I have not heard from Brother Keith Cooper since that time. If you are not going to communicate with me it is not possible to arrange a debate of any kind. I told Brother Keith that I wanted to talk on the phone with him about this and gave my phone number for that purpose.

Now Brother Keith Cooper told me that he was the authorized representative of Brother Jay Wilson. No one has even mentioned your name and suddenly we have changed intermediaries and this one wants to leave the impression that I had disappeared. I could have made a similar charge against Brother Wilson weeks ago but I assumed that he was busy and he would get back in touch when he had the time. Now this nonsense from you is a real surprise. When you guys get your act together out there just let me know!

Then after some time you come in here, and I do not even know who you are, or even if you represent Brother Jay Wilson and try to leave the impression that I am avoiding a debate with him on this subject as follows:

I was wondering if anyone here has heard from Lee Saffold. I just sent a letter via E-mail and my Email was immediately returned. It appears that this address is no longer in service. As I remember, Jay Wilson accepted the challenge of debate concerning the instruments in "worship", and through another person offered a debate proposition. After which Mr. Saffold disappeared. Hopefully nothing has happened to him, and if all is well with you Mr. Saffold please tell us if you intend to engage in debate. This to me personally does appear that since you found someone to debate you on this issue, you abandoned ship. Or it would seem in other terms, when it came to action.... from you....only silence! But as I see it the instrument is not the issue but a biblical definition of what " worship" and "service" are, it seems to have invoked this silence. This debate sorta reminds me of debating the mechanics of Pre-millenialism, having never defined the "kingdom".

Now I have been wrong before, so if all that I said is not the case, then great! Come let us reason together! And if you Mr saffold never get this post, I am sure that there are many Non-instrumentals or any other for that matter lurking that might like to engage in this debate subject, please let me know and we can arrange the details.

Thanks! MIKE

-- mike schisler (mdsacs@juno.com), August 13, 2000

Now, if you had been following this forum very much you would have noticed that I have not gone anywhere! And now you can tell Brother Wilson that since I cannot trust his intermediaries to be prompt and honest in their dealings with me that I will be happy to arrange a debate with him on this subject. But tell him that I will communicate only with him about this matter. He can either communicate directly with me on this matter or he can simply admit that he does not sincerely seek a debate with me on the subject.

It takes some time to arrange these things when we are all trying to formulate the rules and guidelines that we will follow. It requires communication. I have given my phone number and I will give it again. My phone number is: **********. You have my home e-mail address but I will give it again. It is gdragon@mindspring.com . Give these to Brother Wilson and tell him if he wants to debate me that I will discuss the arrangements with him only and no one else. Otherwise stop pretending that he wants to debate this issue with me through the mediation of people that I do not even know are his authorized representatives.

I know he is a busy man but he must understand that he is not the only one that is busy. I too am a very busy man and I do not employ intermediaries to arrange these things for me since I do not have a staff dedicated to anything outside of the telecommunication business in which I work.

So, I have not gone anywhere and nothing has happened to me. And your implication that I am simply avoiding the matter is unreasonable, false, and completely dishonest. And I might point out just here that we have not heard a single word from Brother Jay Wilson at all concerning this matter and therefore are not really sure that he has even authorized you and Brother Cooper to speak for him or mediate for him in this matter! Therefore it is quite ridiculous for you to claim that I have disappeared when Brother Jay Wilson has never even appeared on this scene! If you truly represent Brother Wilson tell him that if he really wants to debate me on this subject that he will have to communicate with me himself about the matter. If you are actually representing him you can give him my phone number and my email address at home that has been working during this entire time. My e-mail at work was changed because they had misspelled my name when they created the address. But he can use my home number and my home e-mail address, which Brother Cooper has known all of this time, if he really is interested in communicating with me on this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

G-a-ag!

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I'm sorry, Danny, that was very rude and unChristlike. Please forgive me.

I continue to pray for you and yours.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Brother Mike:

If you are going to mediate for Brother Jay Wilson the least you could do is get the facts straight! You try to tell us that a proposition was mailed to me as follows:

All I am interested in is if this debate that was graciously accepted by Lee earlier in June is going to proceed. He has contacted or mentioned anything since a proposition was mailed to him. And I have seen nothing on the debate with Jack Prentice and was wondering what happened. MIKE

Not let me tell you that my last post to you, which Duane has graciously posted for me, is the extent of the communication that I have had with anyone connected with Brother Jay Wilson. Neither Brother Wilson nor anyone speaking on his behalf has mailed any proposition to me. But you have told this forum that a proposition has been mailed to me. Now, either you do not know what is going on, or you do not really speak for Brother Wilson, or someone has told you that a proposition was mailed when in fact I have never received one. I hope that you are not intentionally LYING to us! Believe me if I find that you are deliberately lying to us I will not shrink from exposing any lie that you tell! You can count on that! But for now all I can do is assume that you have been given the task that was once the work of Keith Wilson and he has not told you the all of the facts in this matter.

If Brother Wilson has a proposition that he would like to send to me then he is welcome to do so and if he sincerely wants to debate me on this subject I will be happy to discuss the proposition with him.

But to tell people in this forum that a proposition has been mailed to me when it is not the truth is either a mistake on your part or it is extremely dishonest. If the case is one of deliberate dishonesty you should be ashamed to speak lies in the name of Christ!

So, again I must tell you that those mediating for Brother Jay Wilson cannot be trusted because they are either terribly unorganized and cannot keep up with events as they have transpired or they are deliberately dishonest. I sincerely hope the problem is the former rather than the latter.

You tell Brother Wilson, if he is sincere in his desire to debate this subject he will contact me about the matter himself and we will exchange propositions review them and agree upon the rules and guidelines for a debate and we will decide upon the time and the place. There is much that needs to be discussed before a formal debate takes place and anyone who has ever done much of such things knows that how much effort it takes.

One of the things that I had intended to discuss with Brother Wilson was the place of the debate. Because I will have already discussed the matter with Brother Jack Prentice in this forum it may be best to not burden this forum with another formal debate on the subject. This is an especially important consideration when we consider that even one formal debate was so distateful to some and also the fact that I agreed to an informal discussion afterwards. But I have never heard from Brother Wilson at all. Keep this in mind everyone. Brother Wilson, himself, has never appeared in this forum to speak for himself as to whether he is interested in a formal debate of this subject. You can see what confusion is caused when one of the principles to a debate is never present and there is no moderator receiving copies of all communications between the two disputants!

So, Brother Wilson, I look to hear from you personally so that I can know if you ever intended to debate this subject or are these two men Mike and Keith just playing games with us in this forum or if they do in fact represent you.

I also insist that we appoint a moderator to receive copies of all communications between us so that there can be no chance of deliberate deception about these things!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Benjamin,

You said about Brother Lee: "The question of the use of instrumental music in worship came up several times in the past, and Bro. Lee was usually quick to say that it was "not authorised" and that therefore we should not use it. But whenever anyone tried to argue with him about this, he would always say that he would not discuss it further except in the context of a formal "debate" with a clear proposition agreed to by both sides, with the number of formal participants limited, and with clear rules agreed to by both sides."

I do believe that if anyone wants to go back to the beginning, to even before the issue came up you would see the following

Somebody correct me if I am wrong

Lee for a long while did not want to discuss/debate at all the issue of instruments. Others made comments about the instrument issue; I do not believe that Lee himself ever brought it up. Lee made it clear that he thought it more important to confront various false doctrines/issues concerning salvation and such that were going on in the forum than to take time with the instrument issue.

Later, again after others brought it up, Lee said he would debate, and did not want to participate in an open discussion, wherein he would have to answer arguments from most everyone in the forum at the same time with no structure or rules. As you have said: As far as I know, Bro. Lee is the only one of the "a-capella music only" persuasion who regularly participates in this forum. As far as I know also, Lee is the only one in this forum who does not use instruments. Which is probably one of the reasons he is insistent on a formal debate. If I were in his situation here in the forum, I would do the same. Lee has consented to an open discussion after the debate.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

To all-

I guess without spending an enormous amount of time pointing blame and saying this and that, I would rather get directly to the point.

Mr. Saffold as I remember you were mailed a proposition concerning the debate, from that time we have heard no answer. Maybe because you are busy with Mr. Pretentice, which is fine.

Also I am not speaking on behalf of Mr. Wilson, I am merely aware of the possibility of this debate and would like to see this move forward. So since Keith mailed a proposition to you and got no response, I wanted to know what had happened. Keith is still the representative for Mr. Wilson.

And since I have seen no activity from you debating Mr. Pretentice I wondered if you were still going to debate.

Also did you Mr. Saffold recieve the proposition from Keith? If so and you are no longer busy with Mr. Pretentice, great! Please if there is anything I can do, or Keith can do for Mr. Wilson that would get things moving along please list them.

Please understand that Mr. Wilson did ask for Keith to represent him because of his( Mr. Wilson's) limited time.

So this forum does not turn into a you said this, I said this, please tell us what is needed to move forward. Let Keith or I know.

Other than that I have not much to say. If you would like to continue say yes, if you need clarification or better correspondence, fine just list them. But let's get this rolling.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Brother Ben:

You are right to ask for an update concerning the progress toward a debate between Brother Jack and myself in this forum on the subject of instrumental music.

Unlike, the case with Brother Wilson, the communication between Brother Jack and myself has been slow but deliberate and purposeful. It has been slow because both he and I have been very busy for the past eight weeks or so. I have been out of town for at least three weeks in June and July and one in August. Bother Jack has been busy as well but we have managed to response to each other. We are agreed upon my proposition and we are nearing an agreement upon his proposition. It seems that we are in complete agreement upon the guidelines that we will follow. And the only two things left is to agree upon are his proposition which he has submitted to me in a prompt and timely manner. It is a few changes that I have suggested that has delayed the agreement on his proposition. He has only recently received my suggestions and I am sure that he must give them some thought. The other important matter is for us to settle upon a date to begin that is convenient for both of us. I had originally suggested the first week in August but that was not possible for both of us because of my work situation. Brother Jack was gone for a few weeks in July so earlier was not possible.

When we can settle upon a date that works for both of us. And when we agree upon the wording of both propositions we will have Brother Duane announce the date and time and propositions with the rules and guidelines for the dialogue between Brother Jack and myself on this subject. I expect that we will complete this very soon.

Brother Duane has received copies of all communications between Brother Jack and myself and can verify all that has been said between us.

I also want to say just here that it has been a singular pleasure to discuss the arrangements of this debate with Brother Jack Prentice! I have found him to be an honorable and faithful Christian man with the highest since of honesty and integrity. He has been not only polite but also pointedly truthful and reasonable in our communications. His concern is for the cause of Christ and his fellow Christians and things high and spiritual. He has no particular agenda that he is trying to push so that he can have some control over others in the body of Christ but is rather a humble and diligent servant of Christ our Lord. I have come to admire him greatly and expect that all of us will learn much from hearing him discuss this matter in this forum. In fact, it is my opinion that we would learn much more from him on a variety of themes if he had sufficient time and leisure to write more often and more lengthy treaties in this forum. I am confident that a debate with Brother Jack will at least set a tone of kindness and mutual respect that is essential to understanding between those who disagree with one another.

He is able to love and correct without severe offense. In this regard, Brother Ben, he is much like you. I know that all would have wanted this debate to occur in a faster time frame but I am in the telecommunications business which is very busy these days in a highly aggressive growth market with intense competition demanding higher and higher levels of commitments from everyone. And Brother Jack is busy as well. But we can and will have this discussion though it is taking some time to arrange. I sincerely hope that all are willing to be patient since it is of little consequence how soon this is discuss but it is of great consequence how well the debate is conducted and how much we all might be able to learn. I have said al of the above without even mentioning the time required to prepare for such an endeavor on the part of both debate participants.

I hope that this update is helpful and I am sure that we will soon be announcing the date for this debate to begin.

Brother Duane has been waiting for both of us to finish our negotiations but he has been following the progress by receiving copies of all e-mails between Brother Jack and myself so that there is independent confirmation of how the debate arrangements have been going.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Lee, please make sure you keep Mike from lying. We all know how you are the guardian of the truth ( A little needed sarcasim- Laord forgive me!). This debate should be interesting.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Brother Mike:

You have said to everyone in this forum the following:

To all- I guess without spending an enormous amount of time pointing blame and saying this and that, I would rather get directly to the point.

If you did not want to point blame, Brother Mike, why did you come into this forum and blame me for disappearing when nothing of that nature ever occurred? If you did not want to point any blame, brother Mike, why did you come in here and claim that Brother Keith had mailed me a proposition and I had ignored it when you cannot know if that is the truth. You certainly cannot know if I received his so- called proposition. I do not believe that he mailed one but if he did I did not receive it. Before you could blame me with ignoring it you should have checked to see if I had received it. But you did not check on that now, did you?

Then you say:

Mr. Saffold as I remember you were mailed a proposition concerning the debate, from that time we have heard no answe

Now, tell me Brother Mike, do you remember my having RECEIVED a proposition from you? I am telling you and everyone else that I have not received any such thing from Brother Wilson, Mike, or Keith Cooper.

Then you say:

Maybe because you are busy with Mr. Prentice, which is fine.

Of course it is fine. We do not need your blessing to proceed as we please in these matters. And even if I had received a proposition from Brother Wilson, WHICH I CERTIANLY DID NOT, it would be none of your business how long it took me to respond. It is Brother Wilson that seeks the debate and he does not even have time to talk with me as I have repeatedly requested. If he does not have time to talk with me how will he ever find the time to debate with me. I repeat that Brother Wilson has not spent any time talking to me about this matter. If you want this debate to progress then you had better have his real representative to tell him to contact me about it himself. If he thinks that I am going to arrange a debate with him through surrogates he is nuts! He either has the courage to talk with me or he does not. If he does not have the time to do this himself how does he expect every one else to have time to stop what they are doing just to arrange things for him? Also I am not speaking on behalf of Mr. Wilson, I am merely aware of the possibility of this debate and would like to see this move forward.

Then mind your own business. All you had to do was ask why it has not happened yet. Instead you come in here to deliberately leave an impression, that you did not know or care was true or false, that I had in some way disappeared when you knew all along that Brother Wilson has never once appeared in this forum concerning this matter! You even act as if you were representing Brother Jay Wilson and then when I challenge the idea that you are representing him you say you are not. So if I had immediately arranged things with you he could easily have stepped in later and said that he had not authorized you to negotiate these things with me and then he would have an excuse for ignoring all that you and I had agreed would be fair. I am not sure that you even know Brother Wilson, but if you do, you tell him that his tactics are similar to those of a snake in the grass. If you want to make this debate move forward quickly you tell Brother Wilson to call me. My home Phone number is 770-465-8910. If I am not there I do have a message machine and he is welcome to leave a message and I will return his call. But all of this pretence of having mailed a proposition to me is either a mistake of some kind or a deliberate lie but I can tell you that I have not received a formal proposition in the mail from Brother Wilson or his alleged surrogate Keith Cooper.

But you continue to insist as follows:

So since Keith mailed a proposition to you and got no response, I wanted to know what had happened. Keith is still the representative for Mr. Wilson.

If he got no response did he follow up to see if I had received the Proposition in the mail? No, he did not. He has my phone number because I gave it to him. It would have been very easy for him to simply call and ask if I had received the proposition in the mail. No, it or you did not exersized due diligence to check for yourself. You could have gotten my phone number from him and called me yourself but you did not do that, now did you? It seems that you just wanted to believe that such was the case so much that you did not question him about it clearly. It seems to be important to you that the impression be made that I was ignoring this matter. It seems that you remain blinded to the facts after I have now told you twice that I did not receive a proposition in the mail. Are you going to continue to claim that I ignored this proposition even though you have been told that I have never received one from you? If you do then you will prove that you are being deliberately dishonest and I will not have anything else to do with you in this matter. I will also have nothing to do with Brother Cooper for he could have prevented all of this. I will deal only with Brother Wilson. If he does not have time to arrange for this debate himself then he does not have time to debate me and should not have accepted the challenge to do so. If you want to move this thing forward you had better talk to Brother Wilson. I have appeared and have never disappeared in this forum. But Brother Wilson himself has never appeared at all. I have no way of knowing if he ever even wanted to debate me on this subject. I only have a few words claiming such from two men that I know nothing about in this forum.

Then you mention the debate between Brother Jack Prentice and myself as follows: And since I have seen no activity from you debating Mr. Prentice I wondered if you were still going to debate.

Yes we are going to debate and we will do this in a time frame convenient to both of us and that is none of your Business either because you do not represent either Brother Jack or Brother Wilson.

Then you ask a question that you should have asked before accusing me of avoiding this debate with Brother Wilson as follows: Also did you Mr. Saffold receive the proposition from Keith?

Now you would not ask this if you knew that I had received this proposition. This very question is an admission on your part that you have absolutely no idea as to whether I received a proposition from Brother Wilson or not, now isnt it? But if you do not know whether I received such a proposition then how on earth could you say the following things:

As I remember, Jay Wilson accepted the challenge of debate concerning the instruments in "worship", and through another person offered a debate proposition. After which Mr. Saffold disappeared.

Now when you made this statement you did not have any idea if I had, in fact, received a proposition from Brother Wilson through another person, now did you? You merely assumed that I had received it, now didnt you?

Then you say:

This to me personally does appear that since you found someone to debate you on this issue, you abandoned ship. Or it would seem in other terms, when it came to action.... from you....only silence!

How could you have said this when you did not know if I had heard anything from Brother Wilson? In fact, no one in this forum has yet heard a single word from Brother Wilson. Are we safe in calling that absolute silence on his part? No one has accused him of ignoring this debate but he has not actually accepted the challenge himself and we have no way of knowing if either you or Brother Keith Cooper was actually his appointed representatives in this matter. This entire thing could be a total fabrication for all we know! Of course we now know that you do not represent anyone though you acted as if you did and knew all there was to know about how the communication or lack of it has transpired between myself and Brother Jay Wilson or his so-called representative! So I again call upon Mr. Wilson to contact me personally and we will promptly arrange for a debate though it may be in a different forum because there is no need for two discussions in the same forum on this issue. But that is also none of your business since you do not represent Brother Wilson and therefore cannot be trusted to relay my messages to him. But we will have a debate when I hear from Brother Wilson himself and if we are able to agree upon the propositions and the rules of order in the debate.

I will have no further communications outside of this forum from anyone other than Brother Wilson concerning this debate. And I will insist upon a moderator who will receive copies of all communication between myself and Brother Wilson so that every word can be established for I see that his representatives and zealous followers cannot be trusted to speak what they know to be the truth.

Then you say the following:

If so and you are no longer busy with Mr. Pretentice, great! Please if there is anything I can do, or Keith can do for Mr. Wilson that would get things moving along please list them.

I am busy with Brother Jack Prentice, who is honorable and reasonable and can be trusted to sincerely seek the truth. Yes, I am busy with a man that has actually appeared in this forum and has communicated directly with me. And he has no need of intermediaries to facialitate such dishonest tactics as those that you are attempting to do in the name of Mr. Wilson who has not asked you to represent him at all.

As far as what Mr. Keith Cooper can do. The list is short. He cannot do ANYTHING except tell Brother Jay Wilson that I said I intend to debate him only if he communicates directly with me himself. I will then promptly respond in all communications from him that has been sent not only to myself but also to our chosen moderators so that every piece of communication from each of us is on file with someone that we trust and every word can be established. If he wants Brother Cooper to be his moderator for this purpose that is fine but I will communicate with him directly and only if he sincerely wants to debate this subject. The excuse that he does not have the time is pure nonsense. He has been granted, By God almighty, just as much time as I have been granted. Even though I am busy with Brother Jack Prentice, I will find time to deal DIRECTLY AND ONLY with Brother Jay Wilson to arrange and conduct this debate. This is reasonable, it is my right and it will prevent the kind of nonsense that you have injected in this thread. I suppose that you assume that since several in this forum do not particularly like my attitude that they would all think nothing of this way in which you have either been deliberately dishonest or terribly negligent. For it is your Christian duty to know the facts before making such completely false statements concerning a brother that you do not even know. But you are wrong. Most people in this forum are able to see through such tactics!

Then you say:

Please understand that Mr. Wilson did ask for Keith to represent him because of his( Mr. Wilson's) limited time.

So why are you speaking for Mr. Wilson when he has not asked you to do so? And where is Brother Keith Cooper who is supposed to be speaking for him? Can anyone blame me for being a bit suspicious of this nonsense? Does Mr. Wilson think that he is the only one on the face of this earth that has limited time? He has no more limits" upon his time than his own established set of PRIORITIRES nor does anyone else in this world I will make a debate with him a priority for me to work on when he also makes it a priority for him. WE will both have the same level of commitment to this debate or it will never happen. I will not do all of the work! Nor will I allow anyone else to negotiate for him. He will negotiate with me himself or he must admit that he has no interest in this matter. I do this because his representatives have shown themselves to either be incompetent or dishonest. And persons who are incompetent are just as bad as those who are dishonest in my view are. The former is caused by laziness, which is sinful, and the latter is straight from the pits of hell. Neither two groups of people are those with whom I chose to have any dealings. So, the debate with Brother Wilson can happen but only if he deals DIRECTLY with me. My time is just as precious and important, as is his time!

Then you say:

So this forum does not turn into a you said this, I said this, please tell us what is needed to move forward. Let Keith or I know.

It cannot turn into that because I have given the facts in the case and have established what I have had to say with sufficient evidence. Now anyone who can read can know that you have merely jumped into a situation of which you know little or nothing and have either through extreme incompetence or deliberate dishonesty attempted to leave the absolute false impression that I am avoiding a debate with Jay Wilson. Then you say:

Other than that I have not much to say. If you would like to continue say yes, if you need clarification or better correspondence, fine just list them. But let's get this rolling.

No, Brother you have already said enough to establish that you have absolutely NO credibility in this particular matter!

I have already accepted Brother Wilsons acceptance of my challenge and I do not have to say anything to you to get this thing going. You do not have anything to do with this matter. I will say now to Jay Wilson, if he happens to ever read this forum, for he has NEVER appeared here, that I will debate him and since I have agreed to debate HIM I will negotiate the terms with him only. Now we shall see if he ever APPEARS AT ALL IN THIS MATTER. If he never appears then we can conclude that he never accepted the challenge to debate this subject with me for those who claim to represent him have no idea what they are doing.

SO the answer is that if Brother Wilson would like to continue let HIM say YES himself rather than through such a group of absolutely incompetent representatives. I wait to hear from Brother Jay Wilson. If he never appears then I will have my Debate with Brother Jack Prentice (since I would not cancel a debate with such an honorable man for any cause other than severe sickness or death) who has shown himself to be honorable, just, honest, competent, and capable to discuss this matter in the way that a Christian Gentleman is able to do. I will be under no obligation to arrange a debate with someone who is completely unable to find time to even negotiate the terms of the debate directly with me. Everyone can see what an absolute mess it is to arrange such things through the use of third parties!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have sarcastically said:

Lee, please make sure you keep Mike from lying. We all know how you are the guardian of the truth ( A little needed sarcasim- Laord forgive me!). This debate should be interesting.

Now, Brother Kelley, I was completely unable to keep you from deliberately lying so just why do you think that I shall be able to prevent Brother Mike, or anyone else, from lying?

I hope that your prayer for forgiveness was preceded by a genuine repentance before God for the lies you deliberately told in this forum. If they were then I too pray that our Lord Jesus Christ will forgive you. If not, neither you nor I can expect him to forgive you in your impenitent state. You will face Christ in the Judgement and your failure to repent of your lies will cost you your soul. I therefore pray fervently for you.

I hope that you know that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (2 Tim. 3:15) and that we are all told to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3) and that we are to be set for the defense of the gospel (Phil.1: 17). Therefore we all, as faithful followers of Christ, should be guardians of the truth. You cast this title upon me as if one should be ashamed of standing for the truth! I suppose that among liars standing for the truth is a shameful thing. But I must say that I am happy to be accused of being a guardian of the truth. The truth is that I am not the guardian of the truth but I am one among thousands of such Christians who stand firm upon the truth of Gods word and that speak the truth to their brethren. Unfortunately, Brother Kelley, you are neither a guardian of the truth nor one who speaks the truth to his own brethren. You should verily be ashamed of yourself!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Lee-

Just thought I would write letting you know I did read you entire post.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

I'm just an observer, but Mike, are you sure you want to have a debate? How would you like to read pages of the material you see above every day?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Brother Mike:

You have said:

Just thought I would write letting you know I did read you entire post.

I am glad that you read my entire post and I am impressed that you did not even complain concerning the length of it! Ha! You do not have to complain for Brother Link will do that for you even though he has little room to talk on that score. I hope that you understood what you read and got the message very clear.

Now we wait to see if Brother Jay Wilson is interested enough in this debate to contact me himself and negotiate the terms of it and we will have that debate as soon as he and I are agreed upon the terms of it and not one moment before.

Everyone should notice that I have not made any promises concerning the timeline for these discussions because that depends on things that are not completely under my control. I am not the only one involved in these two possible debates. There are others who also must respond to me when I write to them. Brother Jack has done his best I can assure everyone of that but Brother Wilson has never said a word to me about this matter himself. He has never appeared in this forum but I have been here all along and anyone that had anything to say to me regarding this matter knows full well that they could have easily said something in this forum to me and they would have received a response as soon as I could give it to them.

So Brother Wilson has no excuse for hiding from us in this matter. Will he show his face so to speak? Let us wait and see! I hope that he does!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

D. Lee:

As always I apprecaite your comments in the forum. I thank you for the things that you said in a very concise manner. If I had written to explain the same things it would have taken hours and I may have written volumes! Ha! I should learn from you! You have said some very important things that I would have wanted to say and you have saved me the work and the forum another "diatribe". Ha! On that score I think all will appreciate your post!

Your love for truth has caused me to love you very much in Christ our Lord. You are interested in the truth and because of it you have always been able to easily correct my errors for you understand that the word of God is sufficent to cause me to turn from any wrong way. In fact, if one should go through the archives they would find that you are one of the few that has been able to cause me to return to this forum and admit that I was wrong in certian matters. You are an inspiration to me and I want all to know that your attitude toward the truth is exemplary and is such that we should all follow it.

Now I do not mean to imply by this that all that Brother Ben said was wrong nor did you. But you were here long before Brother Ben came into the forum and you are aware of the facts that he could not have been cognizant of without reading large volumes from the archives.

Your point is the truth that I did for many months deliberately avoid the subject of instrumental music for the reasons that you explain and I appreciate your making that clear. Ben is alo correct in stating, especially after his coming into the forum, (not because of it), I decided to speak my mind about that subject because so much was being said in what appeared to me to be "snide remarks" toward those of us who did not use instruments. I even, unjustly I must admit, accused brother Ben of having done such to me. I did not know him well at that time but having observed him over time I am convinced that he is the last man in this forum that would make such a snide remark as we have all seen others make.

One one occassion you corrected me and the attitude that I had displayed in my conversation with him and Brother Danny and because of your correction I immediatlely returned to the forum and apologized for my remarks which were not correct.

Your influnence with me will be felt throughout my life and I thank God for you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Bro. Lee Saffold,

Thank you very much for the update.

Thank you also for the corroboration, to Sis. Lee Muse, of what I had said in my earlier posting. What I said was much condensed, of course, so I may have given the impression that you responded in exactly the same way in every case, which was of course not the case. But there was a certain time period when it seemed as though any time there was a reference to instrumental music (even my innocent acknowledgement that you would see one thing differently from the way I did because of your views on the instrument), you would challenge their views, but then would refuse to respond to any counter-arguments since you wanted to wait for the debate.

I much prefer and much appreciate your recent approach whereby you have refused to allow yourself to be "drawn" by references to the instrument and are actually yourself waiting for the debate as well as making us wait for it.

I think most of the regulars in the forum, excluding, perhaps, a few of the more recent newcomers, do understand and respect your point of view (even if we don't all agree with it) and are not trying to "provoke" you into doing something you don't want to. (At one time I was trying very hard to "persuade" you, but I never, personally, tried to "provoke" or "force" you into it.) And even though I had a similar question to Mike's (i.e. what is happening about the debate and when can we expect to see it), I think a lot of what he said in his original posting to this thread was out of line.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Lee, your pride and arogance is not becoming. Lee, your refusual to accept the truth will hinder the argument in this thread. You will not (as your pattern) read properly the posts that Mike or others will present, instead you will accuse them of lying. Your assumptions and dogmatic theological stance will blind you to the truth and will keep you from understanding your opponets view. Instead when they have a different view you will not reason with them, rather you will accuse them of being a false teacher. Our last debate proved that to all. The fact remains that I am not a liar, nor are you able to debate fairly. Once you have made your mind up concerning an issue then it is set in stone, unlike others who try to present their view, you accuse those who oppose you as liars. Often what happens is that you misread post and do not consider the context or background of your opponent, thus your argument is tanted.

Lee, it is you who needs to repent. Not I. If I need to repent of anything in our debate it is the lack of self defense. Link has shown me that I should at least defend myself on your charges (which are ignorant and childish). How can you debate Mike, if you cannot finish the debate we had. You thought you got rid of me by calling me unfair names and labeled me a liar, but you were wrong. You maybe a good SEAL but you are not good at the debate.

Your argument will never change until you change in your heart. You will be just as dogmatic as you have been in the past. Can I be wrong, then prove it to all. You will not give or allow Mike the privilage of being right in some areas, because in your mind you are always right. the Instrumental isssue is the same. You said one time that you will not worship with musical instruments, but that you will worship with those who do use them, only unless they give up the instruement for the sake of unity (I beleive the ajist of that is in an archived thread). Am I understanding you clearly? Is that the case? If so, then how can you even debate this issue fairly. It is tanted by your theological man made assumptions. You church of Christ (accapella) background and way to worship is THE only way, thus you will tant the argument. Can you worship with a piano or even a band or orchastra? Can you honestly and fairly say to all here that you will allow yourself to hear music in worship? Or will you only listen to the singing melody of a congregation with no instruments (except a pitch pipe)? If you cannot then the debate is over, for there is no sanity in trying to debate to someone who will not reason with you nor even try to understand. THus Lee, you must do some deep soul searching before you continue.

In Christ AKelley

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Bro kelley,

I didn't read the last debate, but you mentioned the idea of someone only worhshipping with others if they give up their musica instruments.

Hmmm. I wonder what such a person would think of fellowshipping with David or the 24 elders John saw in heaven? What about the early Jewish Christians who praised God to musical accompaniment in the temple. I wonder if the saints in Solomon's porch sang along with the instrumental Psalms.

I have a friend who is now a missionary in Israel, going to a Messianic congregation with CoC ties. He said that musical instruments were removed from the synagogues in 70AD as mourning for the destruction of the temple. In the next century, a theological justification for this was arrived at by the rabbis. They couldn't say playing instruments was 'ork ' on the sabbath because of what was allowed in the OT, but if a string broke, that would be considered work. Earlier, instruments had been played in the synagoguge.

Church liturgies were greatly influenced by synagogue liturgy. Later, the readings were from the gospels rather than the Torah, and things like that, but very similar. He felt that some of the churches of this era stopped using instruments along with the Jews at the descruction of the temple. There was not as clear a distinction between Jews and Christians during the first century. When Christians fled in 70AD when they saw Jerusalem encomapsssed about by armies, and returned, that caused tension. When the Bar Kochva rebellion occured much later, and a rabbi declared him to be the Messiah, there was a stronger split.

Some think the Passover supper of the Jews was borrowed back from the Messianic Jews. The Jews stopped, I've heard, having Passover for a while. The temple had been destroyed. Of course the Christian Jews had the love feast. Perhaps they incorporated that into the Passover celebration. Now, the Jewish tradition is to take three pieces of matza, unleavened bread, to break the middle pieace, and hide it. Children find the bread. There may be some other symbols.

Whatever the historical reasons for the lack of mention of musical instruments in church meetings in the 2nd century, the scriptures do not speak badly of the idea of instruments being used to praise the Lord, and are quite positive about it in the OT.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

THus Lee, you must do some deep soul searching before you continue

Brother Kelley, I must tell you that advice from a deliberate liar is of no value to me. I have been examining myself daily ever since I became a Christian and therefore have no need to search my soul just because of a suggestion from man that does so little soul searching that he could lie with impunity and still have no shame.

I will continue as I see fit and your assertion that I MUST do some soul searching is laughable coming from one whose conscience is so seared that he can lie and knowing that he has lied and have no inclination to repent. You are a shame and a disgrace to the cause of Christ our Lord. I do pray that he will be merciful to you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Lee,

These words grieve me and make me sorrowful,

"You are a shame and a disgrace to the cause of Christ our Lord. I do pray that he will be merciful to you."

It is a terrible thing for you to pick apart someone's words an accuse them of being liars when there is misunderstanding and no intention to deceive, and use that as rhetorical ammunition for a debate. But to unjustly use the name of Christ the Lord as a weapon against another the way you are doing here is really a terrible thing. I will pray for you that the Lord will open your eyes, and soften the hardness of your heart.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Brother Link:

It is a terrible thing for you to pick apart someone's words an accuse them of being liars when there is misunderstanding and no intention to deceive, and use that as rhetorical ammunition for a debate. But to unjustly use the name of Christ the Lord as a weapon against another the way you are doing here is really a terrible thing. I will pray for you that the Lord will open your eyes, and soften the hardness of your heart.

Now why dont you just spend a little time proving that examining someones words to see if they are true is a terrible thing? If one proves that another has lied is it a terrible thing to tell that person that he has lied? If so what is the proof that it is terrible to expose the false words of one whom you know has deliberately told a lie?

There was a deliberate intent on the part of Brother Kelley to lie to his brethren in this forum and nothing that you have said or could say would ever persuade me otherwise.

There was no misunderstanding in this case and your attempt to manufacture a misunderstanding has failed miserably.

It as a worse thing for one to deliberately tell lies in the name of Christ as Lord than to condemn a liar in the name of Him who is the way, the truth, and the life! (John 14:6).

I appreciate your prayers on my behalf. It is indeed kind of you to be so concerned with the fact that I cannot tolerate those who tell deliberate lies. But you are not able to know what is in my heart, according to your way of thinking, so how would you know if my heart is "hard" and needs to be "soft"? I have not used the name of the Lord as a weapon in this case and you simply assert but do not prove that such was my intention in using these words. Are you the only one in this forum that is allowed to know what is in someone's heart? Can you PROVE that I intended to use the name of the Lord as a weapon? Can you even prove that I have used it in such a way? I have very justly found Brother Kelley to be a deliberate liar and therefore I have justly stated that he is a traitor to the cause of Christ for having done such a thing. I have simply stated the truth. One who lies in the name of Christ is a traitor to the cause of Christ, and in this case Brother Kelley has defected from the Lord and served Satan. I have proven that Brother Kelley deliberately lied to us and I will never be convinced that he even contemplated telling the truth with his words.

I know that you would like for me to pretend that Brother Kelley did not really mean to lie to us but I cannot find any reason to believe that to be true when all of the facts indicate that such is not the case.

Now it does not matter to me in the least that you pretend to feel sorry for me! Ha!

Now you can cry all that you want. But it was Brother Kelley that came into this thread with a sarcastic remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this thread because he just cannot get over the fact that I caught him in his lie and exposed it. I know you do not like it and neither does he but I do not like lies and I do not tolerate liars or those who do tolerate them. It was Brother Kelley that sarcastically told me to make sure that I do not let Brother Mike lie. Now he was asking for me to respond in kind to such a remark with the fact that I could not prevent him from lying and asking him just what makes him think I could prevent Brother Mike or anyone else from lying. If he does not want to be called a liar then he should stay away from such stupid remarks and learn to tell the truth by not contradicting himself constantly.

Now I am in this thread because I was called upon to be here. Brother Kelley came in here for the sole purpose of casting a snide remark my way because he is so wounded (poor thing) that he was caught telling a lie and cannot explain it. Brother Kelley will be a liar in my view until he either repents of his lies or Christ returns. You can feel as sorry as you want to feel but that will not change anything in this matter for there is not the slightest doubt that he has deliberately told a lie. Now we can continue to talk about his lie until everyone forgets what he said but it would be a waste of time to do so. I have made my position clear that I will expose anyone that I can prove has told a deliberate lie and that is something to keep in mind if anyone is thinking that they can get by with such things in this forum.

SO if you intend to tell a lie make sure that you can do a better job than Brother Kelley has done. For he proved that he had lied with his own words and has not yet recovered from that experience. He will not recover until he repents of this grievous sin!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Lee, your name calling needs to stop now! You have NO RIGHT to call me a traitor to the cause of Christ. I have been very patient, kind, and generous to you. Are you the type of Christian that Jesus wants us to model. Shame on you! You take great pride is accusing a fellow Christian of things that are not so. Anyone can read our posts back to each other on the emotions in worship thread and see that you are being very judgmental harsh and unChristian. To call someone a false teacher and deliberate liar needs proof. Something you do not have. The only reason that you try to grasp at these straws was pointed out by Link. You do not anyone disturbing your theological view especially when it come to the spiritual gifts. I honestly think you can not debate anyone without name calling. You are incapable of kindness and peace. Remember David could not build the Temple due to he was a man of war. You Lee are a man of war by profession and through your faith. There are times for war but peace is always better. Lee, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

I would in the future appreciate you inflamitory prose to stop. Let us agree to disagree. Your legalistic style of thinking was condemed by Jesus, and if you keep it up the blessings of the Lord will not come to you... bitterness, division, and strife are sins. Lee, if anyone needs to repent it is you! If you want to debate let us debate, but on a kinder note. For I will not respond to your hateful remarks- I just will not do it. But, if you ask a genuine question in kindness and love then I will answer. The only one tarnishing the cause of Christ in this forum is you... until you stop with this petty divisive "junk". How can you debate anyone with such as prideful, arogant spirit? Please let us put all of this aside and just debate- the reason for us to be here.

Also, for those following Lee and our debates- you will note that Lee, has not answered most of my discussions. If he has it is to bring a accusation labeling me a false teacher, and a deliberate liar... which he cannot prove. Those who object to Lee, for whatever reason theologically, will be bashed by his onslaught of inflamitory prose which always confuses the real issue. I think Lee is afraid of me and my line of thinking, he is threatened by the possiblity that he may be wrong and that makes him uncomfortable.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Lee,

Let me tell you a little parable. There was an old man who was disturbed by children playing outside his window. He thought up a trick to get rid of them so he could get some peace and quiet. He went outside and told them there was a candy store owner across town, near a certain fountain, that gave away free candy to children. He got the children so excited, they got on their bikes to go across town. The man was set to have hours of peace and quiet. After a little while, he started putting on his shoes, and his wife asked him where he was going. He said 'That candy sounds good. I am going across town to get some candy!'

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe this stuff you write, Lee. I suppose it is possible for one to justify himself and believe whatever he wants.

Are you a liar, Lee? I wonder how you will explain the false statement you recently made in the 'Do you Allow Emotions in Worship?' thread.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Brother Link:

You have accused me of Lying in the thread entitled do you allow emotions in the worship and have come into this thread and accused me of the same thing without telling anyone here the basis of your accusation. Just in case there are those out there who do not have the 15 to 20 minutes time it may take some of them to down load that thread I will quote your actual allegation in this thread for all to see. You accused me of lying as follows:

Will you retract your false statement that no one has answered your arguments (which you made after accusing someone else of being a LIAR on much flimsier evidence.)

No, I will not retract that statement for it is the truth, as I see it. I do not believe you, or anyone else has answered my arguments. I do not doubt that you THINK you have answered them but you have not even mentioned some of them and you have failed to answer any of the others. SO, I have not told a lie in the least by stating that no one has answered my arguments. For it is my sincere belief that they have not been sufficiently answered.

Now I ask every one to compare your accusation with the following diametrically opposite statements of Brother Kelley:

On July the 6th 2,000 Brother Kelley said:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well. Lee, you again make judgmental statments and assumptions that are not conclusive.

Then on July the 9th 2,000 Brother Kelley said:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

Brother Kelley claimed that he actually experience the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but MYSELOF AS WELL He does not tell anyone just how he could experience the gift of tongues within himself without actually having the gift of tongues within himself. It is clear that he intended to leave the impression that he had the gift of tongues, which is the only way one could experience such a thing within them.

Then he later comes along and denies that he had ever said such a thing by playing on the word experience. When pressed to prove his claim he came back with a typical CLINTON RESPONSE very similar to when Clinton said, it depends upon what the meaning of the word is is! Brother Kelley has tried to tell us it depends upon what the meaning of the word experience is!

Now, my sincere claim, that no one has answered my scriptural arguments upon the subject is not even close to being in the same class as Brother Kelleys extreme self- contradiction that I have quoted above.

This is surely a far different thing than claiming to have the gift of tongues within me in one place and then denying that I ever said such a thing in another. I know that you must try to make me appear to be a liar in order to justify Brother Kelley in his lie. But this is a pathetic attempt on your part to do so! Ha! This feeble attempt on your part is obviously simply pathetic. Now just because I do not believe that you have not answered my arguments does not mean that I am lying just because you have attempted to answer some of them and are convinced that you have actually done so. I am convinced otherwise. So I am at least speaking the truth as I see it.

Now, I would like to see you prove that I intended to deliberately lie. So try again, Brother Link! This nonsense that you have attempted here in this thread will not work with anyone that has a brain and can read. Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have asked:

I would in the future appreciate you inflamitory prose to stop. Let us agree to disagree.

Now, Brother Kelley, it was my intention in this thread to answer Brother Mikes questions that he put to me. I had no intention of saying anything to you or about you until you cam in here with the following words:

Lee, please make sure you keep Mike from lying. We all know how you are the guardian of the truth ( A little needed sarcasim- Laord forgive me!). This debate should be interesting.

AKelley (wwjdkelley@hotmail.com), August 15, 2000.

Now, if you really wanted to end this discussion about your obvious lie in the do you allow emotion in the worship thread why would you come into adifferent thread and say such a thing to start the trouble over again? Especially a thread where I am not talking about you or to you and the subject matter has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Your pride was wounded, it seems, and you just needed to feel better by saying such a thing. What does this say concerning how kind and patient you have been with me when you make such remarks? Did you expect me to ignore it? You should have been able to know that I would have responded with the following words:

Now, Brother Kelley, I was completely unable to keep you from deliberately lying so just why do you think that I shall be able to prevent Brother Mike, or anyone else, from lying?

SO you are the one who started the discussion of your lie in this thread. Were it not for your above sarcastic remark that had reference to your lie it wopuld never have been mentioned in this thread. So you only have yourself to blame for this situation that you would like to see ended!

Then you come in here crying that you want it all to stop! Ha! What you mean is that you want me to stop responding to your snide and sarcastic remarks toward me. This is the second time now that you have asked that we agree to disagree and then start the conversation over again. Now we do not need to agree to disagree for we are already doing that much. But if you want to be left alone so that you can forget about this lie you have told then do not come into other threads with sarcastic remarks directed toward me that reference our discussion wherein I have justly called you a liar.

Nevertheless, I will not mention this subject again as you have requested for I have proven my point now enough times and I will leave this matter to God and you and the archieves will leave it to the judgement of those who read these things just what is the truth in this case. I see no good benefit to now be derived from continuing to discuss this matter.

But do not come back at me again with sarcastic remarks refering to this situation if you sincerely want me to "drop" this matter. For if you do I will then talk about it anytime and any place that I chose to do so. So the ball is in your court. If you want this to stop then you know what to do. If not then just keep bringing it up in your sarcastic remarks toward me and I will then do as I chose.

You grab the dog by the ears and now you want him to stop biting you! How ignorant can one be? If you do not like being "bit then do not grab this dog by the ears!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Lee you wrote,

>>>You have accused me of Lying in the thread entitled do you allow emotions in the worship and have come into this thread and accused me of the same thing without telling anyone here the basis of your accusation.<<<<

You accused AKelly of being a liar in this thread without posting the entire thread from the other room. Btw, if you want to get technical about it, I didn't exactly accuse you of lying. I asked you if you had lied. Since _arguments_ (plural) of yours have been answered- whether or not you agree with the answers- and you said your arguments had not been answered, I consider your statement to be false. Whether or not you made those statements with the intention to deceive is an issue I can't exactly answer. Your concept of logic and what it means to be reasonable is apparently different from mine.

I suppose I could, as you have in Kelley's case, insist that I knew for sure 100% that you intended to decieve. It seems much more likely to me that you were being disengenuious than AKelley. But I don't know every thought and intention of your heart any more than you can know AKelley's.

>>>>SO, I have not told a lie in the least by stating that no one has answered my arguments. For it is my sincere belief that they have not been sufficiently answered. <<<<

And according to AKelly, his experience of tongues 'within himself' was related to the peace he felt when _someone else_ spoke in tongues. it might not be the way you would have wrote it, or me for htat matter. He probably didn't mull over the wording for half an hour when he wrote it either.

If you feel that you were honest in sincere in writing that no one had answered your arguments, Then allow for the idea that Akelly was honest and sincere in writing his. The ad hominem (sp) attack may be one of your favorites in your arsenal, but why don't we just stick with the issues?

I'm expecting a bunch of inflated arugments and accusations, because you have demonstrated that you don't want to admit that you are wrong in the least when you are having an argument.

I'd really like to see us all be able to have decent discussions without a lot of repetative, inflammatory, argumentative, contentious, cheap accusings flying around.

Four other posters on the forum have disagreed with you on that thread. Do you think you are the only person in the world who can be right? If other people allow for the idea that the messages posted could be something other than a deliberate lie, could it be that they are right and you are wrong?

Just treat this question as a separate issue from the one before it. Yes or no, in your personal life, do you find it hard to say that you are sorry?

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Lee, as you have called me a deliberate liar on another forum and this one too, you have deliberately deceived this thread and everyone on it. Have you presented the full truth, no you have not. Lee, how can you debate anyone? It would extremly help to those who do not know the argument to present the full truth. When you present a statment the present the full explaination as Link pointed out. As I stated before it is due to the fact that you cannot stand the truth, what it the truth? That the spiritual gifts CAN exist and DOES exist! Is this a Bill Clinton argument? No! Shame on you Lee! You cannot do better. Brother link has called your bluff and has raised the stakes. I guess you cannot handle it.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

As I stated before it is due to the fact that you cannot stand the truth, what it the truth? That the spiritual gifts CAN exist and DOES exist!

I believe that I have often proven during my time in this forum that not only can I stand the truth I also Stand for the truth and I stand against lies. I cannot and will not stand for deliberate lying and you have been guilty of that very thing that all that loves truth should abhor. You and Brother Link can cry all that you want that I have not been just in calling you a deliberate liar. But I have been just in doing so and I will not change what I have said because you accuse me of being unkind and unjust in this matter. I have proven to all honest people that you have told a deliberate lie in this forum. Nothing that either of you has to say about this matter can change the facts. It is you that cannot stand the truth, Brother Kelley. In fact, it is you that that has shown on occasion that you often cannot tell the truth, as your constant habit of contradicting yourself in this forum have proven. This case is not the first time you have contradicted yourself but this is the first time that you have so contradicted yourself that you cannot escape the fact that you have not been telling us the truth. I know you do not like the fact that you have been caught in this lie but that is the way it is and nothing can change it.

Then you assert:

That the spiritual gifts CAN exist and DOES exist!

This is a fine assertion for which you have offered no proof that it is the truth other than your so-called experience wherein you have severely and without doubt contradicted yourself. These were your words wherein you have tried to prove that miracles such as those found in the book of Acts continue today:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Then you deny that you said anything that would indicate that you have the gift of tongues within yourself as follows:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

SO here we have you arguing that the miracles in the book of Acts continue today because you have personally experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. But you then come along and deny that you have the gift of tongues within yourself without even attempting to explain just how it was that you experienced the gift of tongues not only within people that you know, but "MYSELF AS WELL without ever having the gift of tongues. You cannot experience a headache unless you have one. You cannot experience a nice cold drink of water unless you have a cold drink of water to experience. You cannot experience speaking in a language that you have never studied unless you actually have the miraculous gift from God to do so. Now I can watch someone drink a cup of cold water and imagine just how it might feel but I cannot experience that feeling within myself until I drink a cup for myself. I can see someone with a headache and imagine just how he or she might feel but I cannot experience a headache within myself unless I actually HAVE a headache myself. You cannot have experienced speaking a foreign language that you have never studied unless the Holy Spirit actually has given you the miraculous ability to do so. But you told us that you experienced the gift of tongues, which gift is the miraculous ability to speak in a language that you have never learned or studied. And then came along later and claimed that you never said that you had the gift of tongues but only that you had experienced them. You said that you experienced them NOT ONLY WITHIN people that you knew but within YOURSELF also. Now you have never explained to us just how you experienced the gift of tongues within YOURSELF without actually having the gift of tongues within yourself.

Now that was your argument and my response was accurate in pointing out that you have not told the truth in one of these two diametrically opposite statements. Either you spoke in tongues within yourself or you did not speak in tongues within yourself. Now which is the truth? Did you speak in tongues within yourself Brother Kelley or did you never experience such a thing within yourself? Which is the truth? For it is evident that you cannot experience speaking in tongues within yourself without having the gift of tongues within yourself. And you cannot experience the gift of tongues within yourself without having spoken in tongues within yourself.

But that is the best you can do to prove your assertion that miraculous spiritual gifts can exist today and DOES exist. If that is the best you can do then all who are reading this can tell that your assertion is definitely void of scriptural proof and that your "personal experience" argument is riddled with self contradiction and worthy of nothing short of contempt and therefore will not be convinced by it that you your assertion is true. We should not be expected to believe that your assertion is true simply because of an alleged experience that was intended to indicate that you actually experienced' the GIFT of TONGUES within YOURSELF, not observing it in others but experiencing it within yourself as well. An argument that necessitates the possession of the gift of tongues within yourself which within three days you completely deny. You deny that you have ever had the gift of tongues within yourself yet you claim to have experienced the gift of tongues within YOURSELF. Now do tell us just how you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself without ever having the gift of tongues? What kind of experience was it? Did you actually speak in tongues without having the gift of tongues? Can you show from the scriptures where any Christian has been promised a sample of the gift of tongues without being allowed to actually possess the gift and speak in a language that they have never studied? There is much that you must explain about this argument which you have made. It is not an argument from the scriptures but rather from your own personal experience and it is riddled with unexplainable contradictions that you have failed miserably to explain. All you can do is complain that I have called you a deliberate liar. I have called you that, and we could discuss it for eternity. But nothing will change the fact that with this argument from your own personal experience you are guilty of lying in at least one of your two diametrically opposite statements. For that reason your personal experiences are not valid arguments that miracles such as those found in the book of Acts continue today. Especially since we cannot trust that you have told us the truth in all that you have said concerning these so-called experiences.

You are welcome to try some other arguments but that one is simply a miserable failure.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

You accused AKelly of being a liar in this thread without posting the entire thread from the other room. Btw, if you want to get technical about it, I didn't exactly accuse you of lying. I asked you if you had lied. Since _arguments_ (plural) of yours have been answered- whether or not you agree with the answers- and you said your arguments had not been answered, I consider your statement to be false. Whether or not you made those statements with the intention to deceive is an issue I can't exactly answer. Your concept of logic and what it means to be reasonable is apparently different from mine.

SO you say:

You accused AKelly of being a liar in this thread without posting the entire thread from the other room.

You need to remember just here that I had no intention of even mentioning Brother Kelley or his lie in this thread until he made a snide remark that had reference to my accusing him in the other thread of being a liar as follows:

Lee, please make sure you keep Mike from lying. We all know how you are the guardian of the truth ( A little needed sarcasim- Laord forgive me!). This debate should be interesting.

Now it is obvious that he wanted me to continue our discussion about his lie in this thread because he made this remark. If he did not want that matter mentioned here then why would he bring it up in this thread?

Then you say:

Your concept of logic and what it means to be reasonable is apparently different from mine.

Yes, Brother Link, that does seem to be the case! My concept of what it means to be reasonable and logical is definitely different from yours! Now you must mean that such is a bad thing since you assume that your concept of logic and what it means to be reasonable are superior. I suppose that this is just one more example of the charismatic elitism rearing its ugly arrogant head again. It is an awful thing to not have as much intelligence and good common sense as you and the master of self-contradiction and deceit, Brother Kelley. Maybe you and Brother Kelley should pity me some more and hold a prayer meeting and pray for my miraculous healing since you claim to have such powers. Maybe one of you should come to Atlanta and lay hands on me! Oh, I forgot, you did refuse to come and raise the dead you might have some fear of laying hands on me! Ha! Maybe you do not have as much confidence in your own doctrine as I thought. But you might be able to heal me from afar! Then if I am healed of my terrible ignorance and lack of intelligence and logical acumen it may show in this forum. And all will have some evidence that the two of you have miraculous spiritual gifts and can help those of us that are so deprived of mental capacity so that our discussions might be more fruitful! Why it seems that you would pity one that is such a mental invalid and would want to help but the sad truth is that you simply chose to argue with one that you believe is incapable of reason! Now what does that say for your concept of logic?

Now all of the facts related to this matter between Brother Kelley and me are found on the thread entitled do you allow emotions in the worship? and it is already in the archives. If anyone wants to follow that discussion they are welcome to do so and that will given them a good view of what all of us have said in this matter.

You have said:

Btw, if you want to get technical about it, I didn't exactly accuse you of lying. I asked you if you had lied.

Now, it does seem that you want to be careful not to call me a liar, doesnt it?

Then you say:

Since _arguments_ (plural) of yours have been answered- whether or not you agree with the answers- and you said your arguments had not been answered, I consider your statement to be false.

Well it does seem just here that you have finally gained the courage to actually call me a liar. I am proud of you! Now at least we both agree that it is all right to call someone a liar if you are convinced that you have sufficient evidence to prove that he is in fact a liar. So you should not complain anymore that I have called Brother Kelley a liar. For I am more certain that he is a liar than you are that I am one! So why are you crying that I have been wrong to call Brother Kelley a liar? Is it because that is a right reserved only for the charismatic elite? Those who claim to have miraculous spiritual gifts that God never promised to them must be given greater latitude and allowance to do these things! Now I am glad that you have called me a liar and am only disappointed that you cannot prove it. For if you could prove it I would know that it is true and I could repent of it and save my soul from its damning effects. But you have failed to prove it. So, as things stand, I am not convinced that you are right in your accusation but I am extremely happy to see that you no longer believe that it is wrong to call someone a liar if you are convinced that they are in fact lying! For this is exactly what I have done in the case of Brother Kelley except I was, at least, able to prove that he lied so that he could know it and turn from it. I do not now nor will I ever regret having done so for it is the right thing to do. I am so happy that you have learned that lesson! Therefore I should not expect that you would complain of my having called him a liar any more since we are both agreed that such is the right thing to do.

Now I could be wrong in concluding that you agree that it is right to call someone a liar if you are convinced that they are lying. If I am wrong, and it is true that you do not agree, then maybe I should just encourage you to repent of imitating the very thing that you consider a sinful practice. So you should either accept the fact that I have called Brother Kelley a liar because it is the right thing to do or repent of having done the very thing that you condemn me for having done to Brother Kelley. In either case your superior concept of logic and sense of what is reasonable has led you to this fork in the road! Which fork does your superior concept of logic and sense of what is reasonable lead you to take?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2000

It is remarkable how someone can say so much and yet say so little at the same time. Are you so numb that you ignore the posts I made to you explaining the "within myself" argument. It was explained to you in detail... try reading sometime it might help. Your argument that I lied is flimsy and speculative. In fact, you need to do better. But, oh I forgot, I am the master deceiver and liar in the forum. The argument on what I meant is plain for all to see. One can expereince the gift of tongues through someone else... I testify to this effect. Whether you refute that or not, it still does not change the fact it happened. The Lord gave me a powerful sense of peace, love and joy as I experienced this. The Lord's powerful Spirit was flowing within. Can I fully explain it to do it justice... I cannot. Why? Words cannot express what the Lord can do to someones heart. The joy that flows as tears stream down it awesome. The peace that you receive is like no other peace that has ever been given. Yes, a person can expereince tongues and not actually speak in the another language. The residual effect is overwhelming. I cannot expect someone with a closed mind or even a legalistic mind to understand. It is like trying to understand all that there is about the Lord, but we cannot. Our minds cannot fathom all that He can do and will do for us. Just the fact He sent His one and only Son upon the earth to die for we sinners is indeed awesome.

Lee, I can never change your mind. The Lord will do that one day.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2000

Brother Kelley:

In your feeble attempts to explain your pathetic and severe self- contradiction you claim the following:

One can expereince the gift of tongues through someone else... I testify to this effect.

But you ignore the fact that you did not say that you had experienced this gift only through someone else but MYSELF AS WELL This is exactly what you said:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Now, it is clear to anyone who is able to read and think that you claimed that you had experienced the gift of tongues NOT ONLY WITHIN PEOPLE I PERSONALLY KNOW, BUT MYSELF ALSO. Then you come in here and tell us that you experienced the gift of tongues through someone else. But you claimed to not only have done so through someone else but through yourself also. Now you are avoiding even the slightest attempt to explain how you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself by constantly explaining how you experienced it through others outside of yourself. But you said that you not only experienced it through others but that you experienced it within yourself also. The part YOU AVOID is that you claimed to have experienced this gift NOT ONLY within people you knew personally but within YOURSELF ALSO. And you have not said anything anywhere else to explain how you experienced the gift of tongues WITHIN YOURSELF AND NOT THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE.

Now you still have not explained just how you experienced the gift of tongues within YOURSELF and NOT ONLY within others without having the gift of tongues WITHIN YOURSELF. We will wait a long time for you to even attempt to answer that question. We will wait simply because you do not have an answer. For it was your intent to convince us that you know the gift of tongues exist today because you have experienced it not only within others but within yourself also. All of which would mean that not only did you know others that had the gift of tongues but that you must have had the gift working within yourself also. For there is no way that you could experience the gift of tongues within yourself and not just through observing it within others unless you had the gift of tongues within yourself. Then you came along later and denied that you had said anything that indicated that you had the gift of tongues. Thus you so severely contradicted yourself that you cannot escape the fact that you have lied in one of these two statements.

Therefore I stand firmly on the ground that you have lied to us and I am 100% certain of it since you cannot reconcile both of your statements as being the truth. One of them is a lie and there is just no other way to explain it. Did you speak in tongues or not? If you spoke in tongues then you lied when you said that you did not speak in tongues. If you did not speak in tongues, which is exactly what the gift of tongues is, then you lied when you said that you had experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. For in order to experience the gift of tongues within yourself you would have to experience what the gift of tongues actually is. The gift of tongues is not a warm glowing and glorious feeling from the Holy Spirit. The gift of tongues is the actual speaking of languages that you have never studied by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. And they all spoke with other tongues AS THE SPIRIT GAVE THEM UTTERANCE. (Acts 2:4) 

And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind and it filled all of the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder like as of fire and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:2-4). Now that is a scriptural example of someone actually experiencing the gift of tongues and it is nothing at all even similar to anything that you speak about. Did you hear the sound as of a rushing mighty wind and did it fill the house where you were sitting? Did you see tongues parting asunder like as of fire and did it sit upon you? Did you then speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave you utterance? I do doubt it! But if you did not at the very least speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave you utterance you did not experience the gift of tongues within yourself! And so far you have not even explained how you experienced anything within yourself that you could have even remotely mistaken as being the gift of tongues!

In order to experience this miraculous gift WITHIN YOURSELF you would have to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave you utterance. Now either the Spirit gave you utterance of other tongues within yourself or you did not experience the gift of tongues that we all read about in the New Testament. If you did receive such an experience of uttering other tongues within yourself, then you lied when you said that you did not speak in tongues. And if you did not receive such an utterance form the Holy Spirit then you lied when you said that you experienced such a gift from the Holy Spirit within yourself. So do tell us Brother Kelley, when did you tell the truth and when did you lie?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Lee, you come again to the wrong conclusions and you pass judgment without regarding all the facts of the matter. One can expereince tongues "within" without speaking them themselves. If you will just reread my posts to you on the "emotions" thread you will clearly see what I meant. But, it is obvious you jump to conclusions without even reading the posted messages, even the latter ones. Sloppy!

How can a person expereince tongues without speaking them? Maybe I used poor wording to discribe it at first. But, I did have a heavenly expereince as someone spoke them. Lee, I know you attack me because my statments blow your mind and you sir are afriad of that. But, God can allow someone to experience the power of the spirit in a circle of prayer as tongues are spoken. I do not have all the answers nor do I claim to, but you do not either. Your conclusions that the gifts passsesed away with the apostles is weak and flimsy. Your assumptions on this subject are based on "acapella" tradition (manmade).

You have not convinced me or anyone else of you view, because you are so buisy doing nothing but calling me a false teacher and a "master deceiver and liar". Your arguments are boring and a waste of time, Link thought so. Can you come up with an honest debate the seeks to clerify rather than destroy? People do differ from you and that does not mean they are false teachers or liars. On the Day of our Lord (the Day of Judgment) you will surprised to see many "pentecostals" and charismatics leaping for joy as they enter the Kingdom of heaven. Regardless of the name they are labeled with, as long as they have been to the foot of the cross in faith, repentance and water immersion then they are saved to live a life for Christ and go to eternal glory... regardless of what you think of them.

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Brethren:

It is as obvious as the Noon day sun that Brother Kelley has no answer to the questions that were asked of him. He claims to have experienced the gift of tongues not only within others BUT HIMSELF AS WELL. Now he has told us about his experience within others but nothing about how he experienced the gift of tongues within himself without having the gift of tongues within himself. He lies again when he says that he explained this in the other thread. Why does he not just copy and paste that so-called answer to this question into this thread and prove that he answered just how he experienced this within himself and not through others? I will tell you why he does not post it here for us to read. It does not exist in the other thread. For he has never even attemted to explain that matter. He has explained how he experienced it through others but he has not shown how he experienced it within "himself also". Now that is what he claimed but it is not what he has explained to us.

I have made arguments from the scriptures that the gift of tongues have ceased and I have repeated them often. But Brother Kelley has made no arguments from the scriptures that they continue. He has however argued from his own "personal experience" wherein he has so clearly lied to us that we cannot trust a word that he says about his "personal experiences".

Anyone who can read can see clearly that he has done nothing but ignore the arguments that I made in my last post proving that he lied to us concerning this matter. I asked him which of his contradictory statements is the truth. He does not answer.

Then he tries to convince you that I have some fear that we may have Miraculous Spiritual Gifts today. I have no fear of such. In fact I would be happy for the Holy Spirit to endow all of us with such gifts. But the facts are that he has not done so and will not do so. Brother Kelley does not have such miraculous gifts within himself neither does Brother Link or anyone else living today. No one has ever demonsrated such powers before the world since the apostles died and those upon whom they laid their hands on died. All we have today are imposters and liars like Brother Kelley who claim to have powers that no one has ever seen them demonstrate that they have and we have some self deluded souls who sincerely believe that they have been given the same miraculous gifts that we read of in the New Testament. But when we compare what they claim to have with what we find in the scriptures we learn that they are not even remotely similar.

So, with no reasonable explanation from Brother Kelley of his diametrically opposite statements we have no choice but to continue to believe that he has lied in one of those two statements. It is a shame that one should want others to expect Miraculous Spiritual gifts, which GOd has not promised to any of us,so badly that he would deliberately lie in order to convince them to expect such things. a lie will not bring the Holy Spirit in a miraculous manifestation of his power. None should expect to receive such things from God.

Now, who is going to heaven and who is not is none of my business. I have been ordered By Christ the King to preach the gospel and to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). It would make me extremely happy to see everyone in heaven, including our "pentecostal friends" but God has sent a strong delusion to those who love not the truth. There is a danger in believing a lie. In fact, believing a lie is just as damning as telling one, even more so. For the one telling a lie can repent but the one deceived by a lie may never turn to the truth that they might be saved. Now how many of these "pentecostals" have actually obeyed the gospel of Christ I do not know but most of them are taught the false doctrine of salvation by faith only and therefore they have never obeyed the gospel. And the Scriptures are quite clear that those who have not obeyed the gospel, whether "pentecostal" or not will not be saved. (2 THess 1:9- 11). So Brother Kelley's judgement that many pentecostals will be saved cannot be proven from the scriptures. It is clear that Brother Kelley is not the one to who we should look for answers to even questions concerning his own words, which he freely admits not having the answers to, mcuh less should anyone look to him concerning who will be saved in the last day.

I remain fully convinced, after reading Brother Kelley's last "nonresponsive post", that he has deliberately lied to us. That is a proven fact that none has been able to even show a remote possibility that he could have spoken the truth in both of his contradictory statements.

Beware Brethren of those who so blatantly and deliberately lie to you in order to cnvince you by an argument from personal experience to believe something that is contrary to the clear teaching of the scriptures which says, "love never faileth: but whether their be prophesies, they shall be done away; whether their be tongues they SHALL CEASE; whether their be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part but when that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away." We are told by this passage that tongues shall cease and we see in our day that they have ceased therefore the perfect has come. Now some say that they have experienced tongue speaking today but when their personal experiences are closely examined we find that what they claim as tongue speaking is not even close to being what we read about in the New Testament. And some we find to have even been lying about their alledged experience, as Brother Kelley has done in this forum. But what we have never seen, is a positive demonstration that tongues exist today as they were in New Testament times. Brother Kelley says they do but this is a matter of demonstration more than argumentation. He should at least know someone who can demonstrate that they have the gift of tongues that we read of in the New Testament. We have found no one yet that has such a gift. Thus, the teaching of the scripture that tongues would cease has actually been fulfilled when the complete fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel was accomplished and that is th reason we do not see any of these miraculous gifts among us today. We here nothing but talk of miracles today but none of us, includiong our lying Brother Kelley have ever seen miracles comprable to those found in the scriptures. Therefore we have not seen miracles at all. Those who claim to have done so are either deceived or deliberately lying about it, as Brother Kelley has done in this forum.

So, beware brethren, of those who would lie to you and deceive you into expecting things from God that he never promised you. Beware lest someone lead you through intense emotionalism astray from the plain teaching of the word of God.

Beware if you feel tempted to believe a lie (2 Thess. 7-12). Those who believe a lie will be damned. (2 THess. 2:11-12).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Lee;

I believe you are in error and in need of repentance, and owe Mr. Kelley an apology. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong. And here is why.

I have watched your conversation with Mr. Kelley for the past few weeks. Mr. Kelley claims to have had an experience of speaking in tongues. You continually label him a liar. Yet Lee, you have yet to offer one shred of proof that he has, in fact, lied. All you have offered is:

1. according to the way you read the Bible, the gifts have ceased,
2. Mr. Kelley claims to have spoken in tongues,
3. therefore Mr. Kelley is a deliberate liar.

But Lee .... Mr. Kelley had an EXPERIENCE. Now I am not saying that Mr. Kelley is correct in what he experienced. Nor am I saying that because he experienced it, it is a true spiritual manifestation. But regardless of what it was, Mr. Kelley may have indeed experienced it, and you cannot prove otherwise!

My Mormon stepmother absolutely swears she had a "burning in the bosom" that the Book of Mormon is true. Now you and I both know that the Book of Mormon is false. We both also know that the so- called "burning in the bosom" is unscriptural. Do I call her a liar because she swears she had one? NO! I am firmly convinced she did experience one! I believe she is telling the absolute truth! Of course, that does not validate her claim. But I cannot say to anyone that they are lying and have not experienced something, for I cannot physically enter their body and tap into their neural network and feel what they felt. Personal experience is just that: personal.

Mr. Kelley may have had some kind of an experience. He may not have. Whether or not the gifts have ceased, wherever the experience came from .... you cannot call him a liar when he states he has experienced something, for you cannot know what another man experiences or does not experience. No one can. That is quite beyond the realm of physical possibility. You may strongly disagree with him. And so do I. But God, and ONLY God, knows the heart of a man, not E. Lee Saffold.

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Brother John:

I appreciate your concern but you are definately wrong about this matter. Maybe you can explain how these two diametrically opposite staements can both be true. He is what Brother Kelley said:

"I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Then three days later Brother Kelley said:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

And maybe you can answer the questions that I have asked him which he is completely unable to answer. Maybe you can tell us just how he coyuld "experience the gift of tongues" within himself as he claimed without having the gift of tongues within himself?

You obviously have not really read this matter very closely. Try reading all that we have said one more time and see if you can find any explanation of these two diametrically opposite statements made by Brother Kelley. One of them is false since both of them cannot be the truth.

Now this is very different from our Mormon friends who sincerely believe, for they have been deceived into believing, that they have experienced something that they have not experienced. They are careful however to not claim to have an experience on one day and deny it on the other and claim that both statements are the truth! THis is what Brother Kelley has done you cannot save him from the fact that he has lied in one of these two statements. No one, least of all Brother Kelley, has even approached offering an explanation as to how both of his diametrically opposite statements can both be true. Some have tried to say he did not say what he really meant to say but even Brother Kelley does not accept that explanation. Some have said it was just a typographical error but Brother Kelley does not accept that either. Some have suggested that he simply "forgot" what he had said earlier and no one with the slightest ability to think would accept the idea that one would have experienced the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues and tell us all that he had experienced it within himself and within three days forget that he had ever made such a statement. That is absurd in the highest degree. therefore that sop called attempt to "rescue" Kelley from his lie failed. Then Brother Kelley tried to redeem himself by claiming that he experienced the gift of tongues through others. But he ignored the fact that he claimed not only to have experienced it within people that he personally knew but within himself also. So that effort has failed miserably to rescue him from the simple fact that he has deliberately lied.

Now you come in to rescue him from this lie without even attempting to explain how his two diametrically opposite statements can both be the truth. You attempt to save him from the charge simply by saying that I should repent of having made such a charge against him. You want me to repent for telling the absolute truth about his diametrically opposite statements which he has made wherein hes logically has lied in one or the other of them.

I have nothing to repent of, Brother John. Brother Kelley has lied in one of these two statements and I have therefore proven that he has lied to us. You cannot reconcile these two statements so thou want me at both of them can be the truth therefore one of them is a lie;yet you want me to repent for exposing his lie! Brother John, that will not happen in this life or the next! He has lied and it is clear to anyone with the ability to read, think and reason. You just do not like the fact that I have exposed him and have called him a liar. But you cannot show that he has not lied, now can you? He has without doubt either lied when he claimed that he experienced the gift of tongues within himself or he has lied when he claimed that he did not sp[eak in tongues. For the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in languages that one has never studied. If he "experienced" this gift within himself he would have of necessity had the gift of tongues within himself which he denies. One experiences the gift of tongues by "speaking as the spirit gives him utterance" but he denies that he ever spoke as the Spirit gave him utterance. Therefore he did not exp [erience the gift of tongues by his own admission. But he claimed that he did experience the gift of tongues. So he lied in one place or the other but he could not have told the truth in both satements. Now, did he lie when he said that he experienced the gift of tongues within himself, and not just through others or did he lie when he said that he never spoke in tongues? You tell us just whichone is the lie? Or maybe you can explain how both of those statements can be the truth. Several have tried but none have succeeded in showing that both statements are true. Yet you want me to reppent for exposing his deliberate lie! Forget it John! That will never happen. You would do better to persuade Brother Kelley to repent for having lied to us.

Either stand for the truth John or forget about being the servant of Christ. Lies and Christ do not reside in the same heart. Such lying is a shame and a disgrace to all that Christ our Lord taught us. We are commanded to "lie not to one another"! It is sinful for Brother Kelley to lie as he has without doubt done in this case and I will always see him as a liar until he repents. If he never repents of this deliberate lie I will never trust him and will always admonish him to repent!

Stand for the truth John for this is not a game!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

How can a person expereince tongues without speaking them?

Now I know that is a good question and one that I have asked you several times now. It seems that you think you have finally come upon a suitable answer! The fact is that the gift of tongues which you claimed to have experienced is the ability to speak in a language that is not ones native tongue and that one has never learned or studied. Now how could one experience such a gift without actually speaking in a language that is not their native tongue and is not a language that they have learned by diligent and long study? It is impossible! In fact it is a logical impossibility. If one were to replace the words the gift of tongues with words indicating exactly what that gift is one could conceivably see that it is impossible. You said that you had experienced the ability to speak in a language that is not your native tongue and that you have never learned or studied without having spoken in such a language or even possessing the ability to do so!

But you continue to try and explain how you experienced this gift that you admit that you never had within you beginning with an admission that you should have worded your original statement differently as follows:

 Maybe I used poor wording to discribe it at first.

Now I do not doubt that you regret the way you first worded your statement and wish that you had worded it in such a way that none could have caught you in this deliberate lie. But it is too late for that Brother Kelley. And what is worse, while you regret the wording you still make the same claim expressed by that wording and your different words have not extracted you from your responsibility for lying to us . Then you change again and now make a different claim as follows:

 But, I did have a heavenly expereince as someone spoke them.

Now Brother Kelley, you never claimed to have had a heavenly experience as someone else spoke in tongues! Instead you claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues not only within people I personally know but MYSELF AS WELL. You made no claim of some generic heavenly experience as some one else spoke in tongues rather you SPECIFICALLY claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues within yourself and not merely through someone else speaking in tongues! So this feeble attempt to explain away your obvious self- contradiction is actually worse than your other attempts to explain it! For now you are making an entirely DIFFERENT claim. Now you claim to have had some generic heavenly experience instead of having actually experienced the GIFT OF TONGUES within yourself and not only through others as your first statement claimed! SO which is it Brother Kelley? Did you experience the gift of tongues not only within those whom you personally knew but within yourself also as you originally claimed or did you merely have some generic heavenly experience while someone else spoke in tongues? Which of these two statements are true and which one is false?

Then you try that old worn out whining about my attacking you as follows:

Lee, I know you attack me because my statments blow your mind and you sir are afriad of that.

I am attacking your lies Brother Kelley and that is a far different thing from attacking YOU. Just how would you expose someone who lied without appearing to be attacking them personally? For you see a lie is by its very nature a severe reflection upon your character as a person. But when you lie to others the person exposing that lie cannot avoid the appearance of making a personal attack but those who love the truth will expose lies without being concerned of such things. If you do not like this situation then do not lie and you will not have to suffer an apparent attack from the one who exposes your lie with little or no concern that you will feel that he is attacking you!

. I am talking about the facts. I am responding to an argument that you made from your own personal experience. How could anyone answer any argument made from someones PERSONAL experience, especially when they have lied about that experience, without the appearance of attacking them personally? If you do not want to be attacked then do not use your personal experiences as an argument in debate. For there is no way to respond to an argument made from personal experience without having your personal experience examined and scrutinized and if it turns out that you have lied about such an experience it is impossible to answer without exposing the lie. So if you do not like feeling as if others are attacking you keep your personal experiences out of the discussion. If you are unwilling to have those experiences scrutinized then do not use them as arguments to support your cause.

And then you seem to need to leave the impression that I am in some way afraid of statements made by you that blow my mind (whatever on earth that phrase means in the English language). With these words:

Lee, I know you attack me because my statments blow your mind and you sir are afriad of that.

Now that is a fine assertion, which you could never prove to save you life! Ha! It is interesting how much time you and others spend claiming that no one can know the heart of another person and yet none of you shun the first opportunity to judge the hearts of others yourself! At least I contend that we can know what is in the heart of another by what comes out of their mouth. For our Lord said out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. But you, on the other hand claim that we cannot ever know what is in another persons heart. Then you come in here and claim that you know that I attack you because I have fear in my heart! Now who is judging the heart of another? Ha! No one can know what is in anothers heart according to you but you know that I have fear in my heart! Ha! This is just another one of your constant self-contradictions. It does seem that it is impossible for you to talk without contradicting yourself! You SIR are a miserable bundle of self-contradictions! So much so that you cannot get yourself untangled from the way you have wrapped yourself up in your long lying tongue. In fact, you have so entangled yourself that even your friends cannot extradite you from this tangled web. Instead of getting help by turning to the Lord for forgiveness and seeking to do the right thing by repenting of your lie you continue to struggle with yourself and the grip that your own tongue has around you gets tighter and tighter. Be careful, Brother Kelley, you will soon choke yourself to death with your own tongue.

It seems however that you intended by this to refer to your previous indication that I am in some way afraid of the miraculous. But as to my being fearful of the idea of the miraculous, such an assertion is absurd on the face of it. I look forward to the resurrection of all men good and bad at the last day. (John 5:28,29) and believe in all of the miracles of the New Testament and would be more than happy to see them occurring today and to possess any of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit that were given through the laying on of the apostles hands. But I am not willing, as are you, to deliberately deceive myself and others with the delusion that such things exist today when there is absolutely no evidence that they do nor am I willing to tell others these things just because I would like for us to have them. The fact is you have no such miraculous gifts and neither do I nor does anyone else and deceiving yourself will not change that fact. So I have no such fear as you assert but do not prove. I hate every false way and the lying tongue is dangerous to all who hear it. I detest lies. And that is not caused by fear rather it is nothing more than an expression of pure CONTEMPT!

Then you tell us:

But, God can allow someone to experience the power of the spirit in a circle of prayer as tongues are spoken.

God can do anything Brother Kelley but the problem is that you cannot show from the scriptures nor can you prove otherwise that God has ever done such a thing. . Nor can you show that He has ever promised to do such a thing, nor that God WILL EVER DO SUCH A THING!

Then you say:

I do not have all the answers nor do I claim to, but you do not either.

Now that is the truth Brother Kelley. But in this case you do not have ANY answers that will acquit you from the charge of having deliberately lied in one of your two diametrically opposite statements that you have made in this forum. In one of those two statements you have lied to us and this is one of the things that you definitely do not have the answer to though you seek it night and day with tears! Repentance and reformation of life would be far easier than denial of the facts!

I do not have to convince anyone else in this forum of any of these things for that is not my purpose. Rather my purpose is to warn others to not trust on who has lied to them. The following passage of scripture sums up my purpose very well:

The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: 'When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.' "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself. (Ezek. 33:1-9).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 22, 2000

Lee,

Others who have responded to your post realize that you are wrong. You should listen to counsel instead of filling up this board with pages full of inflammatory rhetoric, name calling, accusations, and extremely repetetive arguments. I intend to do the same. I know I just can't take you seriously.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Lee, are you that slow to reason? I have not lied. You are the only one in the entire forum to think so... interesting. But, to refute your charges I will use your own words...

July 4, 2000 In regards to my insistance that the gifts still exist, you wrote..."Brother Kelley, your words have proven you to be a false teacher..." and here is the reason why, "But, I am denying that you have ever seen a miracle...". You further state, "Since the New Testament clearly teaches that these things ceased when the apsotles died and those whom they laid there hands upon died no one else had these powers it is clear that you are lying to have seen such things." Now I would like to point out that you have come to false conclusions and have passed judgment upon me before even trying to understand me. And further I would like to ask, where is a book chapter and verse to show the gifts have died with the apsotles. If you do not show me then you sir are the BIGGEST LIAR in this forum.

Again you maintain, on July 5, 2000, "When all of the aposltes died no one could recieve the miraculous gifts of the holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostle's hands." Here you give your theological view but no proof, where is the scripture that exactly says they died... there is none. Then you spout more traditional thinking to say, "This had nothing what so ever to do with the collection of the "canon" as some have sought to make this matter revolve around. This had to do with the completion of revelation and the confirmation of God's word." So you now tell all that you do not believe that the "perfect" is the canon but existance of gifts until apostles died. But again I ask where is the book chapter and verse?

Then later you respond to Ben on July 6, 2000, that you find the "word of God is "conclusive" that miraculous gifts where imparted only through the laying of the apostle's hands." Then you further explain your reasoning that "since there is no evidence having been done either other way." INteresting that this is an ASSUMPTION which I post repeatedly but you ignore. In fact I wrote that you have a "theological ASSUMPTION!" (July 6).

July 6, 2000;I then try to refute your false assumptions by pointing out an experience that I have had by stating, "I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well." Note that I never stated that I had the gift only experienced the gift. I should have clerified the issue but I did not. Lee, again to make an assumption that I spoke in tongus with this statment.

Then Lee, you wrote on July 7, 2000, that "I believe that you are deliberately lying to us when you claim to have spoken miraculously in a language that you never studied." When did I state that I spoke in any language learned or unlearned? I stated above that I experience them. Then you state "Brother Kelley claims these same powers without claiming to be inspired or that he is an apostle" Where does the NT say that those who have gift are inspired or apsotles? Lee you need to reread you Bible. Your assumptions are false and faulty. You contradict yourself over and over and make the same mistakes as you claim that I make. Then Lee you say, "If Brother Kelley does not demonstate these powers or find someone he knows has these powers to demonstrate them to us we will know that he is a deliberate liar making claims he know that are untrue." Lee, you challenged me, so I will now after much prayer challenge you. Come fly to KC MO and I will show you people who have these "miraculous powers" and I will also introduce you to people who have been miraculously healed through the power of the Lord. I await your visit. In the same post you say, "Well, preachers do lie and you are one of them becaue you claim to have the gift of tongues..." I never stated I have the gift, but I know they are real through various experiences. Again Lee, you assume too much. Lee, you assert that "God's word teaches that they have ceased and therefore you can not see what God is no longer doing." Again I ask, where does the NT state that the gifts have ceased and that God will no longer impart a gift to people? Also you slander me in this post by calling me a "false teacher and a deliberate liar" but you have not proven any such thing.

On July 8,2000, you say this to a post to Ben about me, "I have accused brother Kelley of being one of those deliberate liars because he has the same marks of the same beasts that I fought before." Now you present why you claim that I am a "beast". You assume that just because I believe what I believe, you think I am the same as some you have had run ins with in the past. You neither try to understand or know my understanding on the issue, you are blinded by you theology and by people of the past.

On July 9 ,I try to refute your deliberate deception by stating, "Now I never said that I spoke in tongues, I said I experienced it...and I did! It was through a very godly woman in our last church before we left. The woman started to pray and normal prayer for us then spoke of things that only we knew- then she began to speak in tongues (and it was a language and it was interpreted)." I later on August 15, I said, "Like I said I did not speak in tongues, but I experienced it through another who did, but the joy and peace and unexplainable power flooded my soul as she (a lady in my previous church)spoke in tongues was undeniable." This is how I experienced tongues "within" without speaking literally.

Lee, you deliberately keep on slandering my good name and call me a lair. You have not proven that I lied. The only thing you have pointed out is that you are the best in the forum in making assumptions. Paul said in I Corinthians 1:7 that "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed." Can Paul mean that the gifts are in operation untill the coming of Chirst? I think so. Further Paul says "do not forbid speaking in tongues..." Paul did not say only speak in tongues till I die... did he? NO again I say there is no proof that the gifts of the spirit namely tongues ever died with the apostles. My experience with tongues is a spiritual matter, when the dear Christian woman prayed in tongues for my family and I, our spirits testify to the empact on our lives. Paul said that tongues, "For If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays and my mind in unfruitful" (I Cor. 14:14).

Whether you choose to except this or not is between you and the Lord. But, I stand innocent of lying and deception. Now the ball is in your court Lee.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

Come fly to KC MO and I will show you people who have these "miraculous powers" and I will also introduce you to people who have been miraculously healed through the power of the Lord.

I will be happy to come to KC MO if you will arrange for any of those who claim to have miraculous powers to demonstrate those powers for me to actually see with my own eyes. We can go to the local hospital and let them heal the sick people that I chose for them to heal and we can go to the graveyard and let them raise even one person from the dead. Will you agree to that? I do not have to go to KC MO to find people who CLAIM to have been healed by a miracle I can find those deluded souls here in Atlanta. I do not have to go to KC MO to find people that CLAIM to speak in tongues for they are easy to find here in Atlanta. Nor do I need to go to KC MO to find liars that claim to have the miraculous power to heal the sick and even to raise the dead for they are also easy to find here in Atlanta. But what cannot be found anywhere in this world is one who is able to actually speak in languages that they have never studied or even heard and people who can actually DEMONSTRATE that they are doing miracles by the power of God such as those we find in the book of Acts! What we have never seen in our lives is one who has been given the miraculous power to RAISE THE DEAD.

It is odd indeed that you would ask me to come to KC MO to see people who are doing nothing more than making the same false claims that you have made without being able to demonstrate their powers when you were completely unwilling to bring them to Atlanta at my expense to go into a graveyard and raise the dead or to even go into a hospital to heal the sick.

But I will accept your offer to go to KC MO if you will agree that I will be coming there to see a demonstration of Gods power by those who claim to have these powers by going to the local hospital and actually healing someone instantly like it was done in the New Testament and if you will arrange for them to go to a graveyard and raise the dead. I will also come if we make it a media event wherein the media will come and film their actual demonstration of their claims to have miraculous powers by healing the sick which I wil select, in a hospital that I have never seen, and raising any of the dead from a grave yard. SO the challenge is back to you. Will you agree to such a test of their powers by arranging such a demonstration of the miraculous powers that you CLAIM still exist today?

I am not interested in taking to those who do nothing more than LIE about their healing and speaking in tongues etc. I am interested in an actual demonstration of the miraculous powers that you claim exist today. You have said that you know people who have been healed by the power of God. Then it is certain that they must know the people who supposedly healed them. Those are the ones that I want to test and see if they do in fact have such powers. And one single visit to a hospital to heal someone would be sufficient to establish the truth concerning his or her claims. I will select the patients that they are to heal by their powers and we will see if they actually have such powers and the media will be there to record the results! What do you say to that? I can assure everyone that Brother Kelley is not interested in doing any such thing. So watch and see what he decides to do about this matter. Will he agree to a demonstration of the miraculous both at a hospital and in a graveyard? I doubt it very seriously.

Now as far as the demonstration of speaking in tongues, I will bring someone who is a native speaker of a foreign language and we will see if they can speak that language by the power of God as they claim to have this gift and we will have that person to tell the T.V. audience if the language being spoken is the language that he spoke from his birth or not and if he understood what was said. For we are told concerning those who witnessed the genuine demonstration of the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, And they were all amazed and MARVELLED, saying one to another, behold are not all these men Galileans? And how hear we every man in OUR OWN TONGUE WHEREIN WE WERE BORN? (Acts 2:7,8). Will you agree to such a test Brother Kelley? If so I will come to KC MO and we will document for everyone this great miraculous working of God in KC MO! So the ball is back in your court Brother Kelley. Will you agree to such arrangements or not?

Now to everyone else in this forum, I want you to watch closely how he answers this response to the challenge that he has himself made! We wait to hear from you Brother Kelley. This could be one of the greatest media events in the history of the media!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

P.S.

No one has seen you even come close to explaining your diametrically opposite statements yet! And you have not shown one single contradiction in anything that I have said! You merely claim that I have said contradictory things just like you admit that you have done. But you do not copy and paste them side by side as I have done with statements wherein I have claimed that you contradicted yourself. Nor have you even attempted to explain just how I have contradicted myself. When will you learn that assertion without proof will not work?

For everyone else I will now copy and paste AGAIN your irreconcilable opposing statements:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Then three days later you said:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

The two statements speak for themselves. No one, least of all you, is able to show how both of these statements can be true.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Lee, here I post the truth and you again ignore it. You ignore the truth. I have said that unless you prove that in the scriptures where there is a thus saith the Lord then you are a deceiver yourself. I stated that the ball is in your court. You cannot prove from the scriptures that the gifts have ceased, yet you teach they have... SHOW ME THE PANTHER!!!!!!

You assertions, assumptions, and theological understanding is garbage! I have proven that! You want to take up my challenge to you, but the reality is you will not. You will not spend your money to fly to KC to speak to those who have tongues. You will not listne honestly to those who prayed for other people and they where healed. You will not listen to people who have been healed, by prayer. You only want to make a mockery of what I believe.

Here is a question, does Paul teach that tongues is only a language that other people can understand? No there are two forms of tongues. Read the Corinthian correspondence, you will see this. Plus, you miss my whole argument. Stick to the fact I presented that you contradict yourself. Nowhere did I ever admit that I contradicted myself, but I only said that you claim I do. But, I just previously pointed out that you cannot be trusted to have an honest debate without slandering and name calling. But, I have challenged you at your own game. If you do not prove to me with the scripture that the Bible teaches that the gifts died then you are in error!

Notice, not many in this forum want to debate you any more... I wonder why? Duh! Perhaps it is due to your stubborn name calling and assumptions that you try to cloud the issue with. My question is, can you realy have an honest debate without such? I personally doubt it- through experience with you.

I personally will not answer your next post. We are going nowhere. As much as you try to get under my skin... this is not edifing the body of Christ.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

Others who have responded to your post realize that you are wrong. You should listen to counsel instead of filling up this board with pages full of inflammatory rhetoric, name calling, accusations, and extremely repetetive arguments. I intend to do the same. I know I just can't take you seriously.

You have had much to say to one whom you claim that you cannot take seriously. Why waste so much time on someone whom you are convinced cannot be taken seriously? Ha! Your mouth speaks one thing and your actions something quite different, isnt that right?

Then you say that others who have responded to me realize that I am wrong! How ridiculous. The truth is not decided by numbers of people who disagree with you. It has often been true that the one speaking the truth is standing alone. Just think of the large number of the Jews who realized that our Lord was wrong? Ha! If that were the actual criteria of truth then you would not be a Christian because the majority of the world today realizes that we are wrong! If we were to count heads and take a vote on what is the truth today we would find that Christianity would not win the election, now wouldnt we? Imagine how Paul felt when he was outnumbered and mobbed in Ephesus (Acts 19:29-35). Can you just see him reasoning, as did Brother Link in this post? It is obvious that these people realize that I am wrong so I will just go home and shut my mouth for I must be wrong! How could so many people be right and I alone am wrong? Ha! If such were the best criteria for determining the truth there would not be a Christian in our mist today!

Then you advise me:

You should listen to counsel instead of filling up this board with pages full of inflammatory rhetoric, name calling, accusations, and extremely repetetive arguments

The only two things that I have said which is not rhetoric but would seem to inflame others is that Brother Kelley has lied and is therefore a liar and that because of this he is a traitor to the cause of Christ. Now if the truth inflames you then believe the lies that do not inflame you so much. When Christ called the Jews Lairs by saying that they were of their father the Devil for he is the father of lies I am sure that they were inflamed but Christ did not take counsel to condone their lies simply because his true accusation, that they were children of the Devil and therefore liars since the devil is the father of lies, inflamed them!

I have justly called Brother Kelley a liar because he has without doubt lied to us. That is not mere name calling as you put it. It is stating a simple fact that I have proven to be true and none have shown otherwise. If anyone wants to counsel me on this matter they had better come with a sufficient explanation as to just how both of these statements made by Brother Kelley can be true. Without a good sufficient explanation of that matter they will only be wasting their efforts as you have done!

So where are those with wise enough counsel to show just how Brother Kelleys diametrically opposite statements below can both be the truth. I would like to hear from them. Brother Link, you have already tried and failed and so have Brother Kelley and Brother John. So where are these wise counselors that you are talking about. I have not heard any wise counselor yet and when one comes in here and shows that Brother Kelleys contradictory statements can in fact both be true then I will listen to that persons wise counsel. Otherwise, I have no need of unwise counsel!

So for you wise counselors out there, here again are Brother Kelleys two contradictory statements that cannot both be the truth:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Then three days later Brother Kelley said: First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

Then you complain of the extremely repetitive arguments. My arguments are repetitive because Brother Kelley is repetitively ignoring some of those arguments. And until he can give a good explanation of these things I will continue to repeat them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Well folks:

Brother Kelley challenged me to come to KC MO talk with those who make similar false claims that he has made concerning the miraculous gifts that they pretend to have. I accepted his offer on the condition that these people are required to DEMONSTRATE THEIR POWERS by going to the local hospital to heal the sick and to go to the graveyard to raise the dead and to speak in tongues to the foreigner that I bring to test that they have such a gift. To my acceptance of his challenge he simply says that I will not come to KC MO when the truth is that he does not want me to come there and TEST the spirits whether they are of God because he knows that he has not been telling the truth and that those whom he claims to have these powers do not really have them after all. Here are his words:

You assertions, assumptions, and theological understanding is garbage! I have proven that! You want to take up my challenge to you, but the reality is you will not. You will not spend your money to fly to KC to speak to those who have tongues. You will not listne honestly to those who prayed for other people and they where healed. You will not listen to people who have been healed, by prayer. You only want to make a mockery of what I believe.

Brother Kelley, I have said that I will come to KC. MO one the condition that I be allowed to test those who claim to have these gifts as I described in my last post by taking them to a hospital to heal the sick and a graveyard to raise the dead and bringing a person that I know speaks a foreign tongue to see if they have the gift of tongues as they claim. And I will bring the media with me and we will settle once and for all if these persons have genuine gifts from God or not and have a record for all to see. We will not let this thing be done in a corner hidden from view. If they have these powers it is their chance to do a notable miracle in the presence of all.

But he shows by his above statement that he now regrets having made that challenge for he does not want me to come under the condition that I be allowed to test these men in this way! What a farce! Those seeking to perpetrate a fraud do not like the light of day, now do they? Ha!

Then he tells us that there are two forms of tongues as follows:

No there are two forms of tongues.

Now maybe you would like to clarify just what you mean by this statement? Why do not you just get specific and show us from the specific verses in the Corinthian letter that leads you to believe that there are two forms of tongues. This should be very interesting. I look forward to that explanation! I will wait for you to explain what you mean and prove that it is true.

Now be careful Brother Kelley just how you WORD your response to this request for clarification for I will leave you no way of escape if you miss a single step. Do not assume that I have not heard this nonsense before! Ha! I am merely wanted you to clarify it with your own words first so that you cannot back out of what you say later as you so often try to do. So do tell us just what you mean by your assertion that there are two forms of tongues?

Then Brother Kelley says:

But, I just previously pointed out that you cannot be trusted to have an honest debate without slandering and name calling. But, I have challenged you at your own game. If you do not prove to me with the scripture that the Bible teaches that the gifts died then you are in error!

Now you are convinced that I cannot be trusted to have an honest debate! Ha! The problem that you have and others have with this debate is that I am too honest. I honestly tell you that I am persuaded by the facts that you are a liar. You cannot and have not explained your diametrically opposite statements wherein you have lied to us. You are the one who cannot conduct an honest debate because lying is dishonest Brother Kelley. You have lied and nothing you have said will change that fact until you show just how both of your statements which I have now quoted numerous times could both be the truth. You have failed miserably in that matter.

Then you say you have challenged me at my own game"! Ha! Now that is laughable that you would do such a thing after claiming that my game is sinful and wrong. If you really believe that my calling you a liar is sinful and that I should repent of having done so why on earth would you join me in such a game? You see even in this you contradict yourself! Ha! But you could be referring to your challenge for me to come to KC MO. I have accepted that challenge on the condition that you accept my demand to test those who make these false claims of miraculous powers. And you have not answered me, now have you? Do you accept my right to test them as I described in my last post or not? If you do I will come to KC MO to test them. But all you did was claim that I would not come. Well why do not you just accept my counter challenge and see if I will come or not? I can assure you if you accept those arrangements that I will be there as fast as the airlines can take me there! And I wil bring the media with me to document these wonderful things! Ha! That would be a lot of fun. Why, some of the Brethren in this forum might like to see this in person themselves! Ha! So stop playing around, Brother Kelley, the ball is still in your court, stop playing around with it and get on with the game! Ha!

I am not desirous of making a mockery of what you believe Brother Kelley. I only want to test the validity of what you believe. And why are you afraid that I COULD "make a mockery of what you believe"? For if these persons actually have miraculous gifts from God no one would be able to make a mockery of those powers. No one in the book of Acts was able to succeed in making a mockery of the miracles that were done by the apostles and those upon whom the apostles laid their hands. Why do you fear that it is even remotely possible that anyone could make a mockery of those upon whom the apostles of Christ have not laid their hands? Does it not sound as if you are somewhat doubtful that these people actually have the powers that you claim that you know them to have? I think it does, dont you? Ha!

Then he says:

. You will not listne honestly to those who prayed for other people and they where healed. You will not listen to people who have been healed, by prayer. You only want to make a mockery of what I believe.

I will listen if they DEMONSTRATE that they have these powers. For you did ask me to come and TALK with those who have these powers, did you not? Well how am I to know that they do, in fact, have such powers if they do not demonstrate that they have them? So it would be impossible for me know that I am actually talking to the people that I spent money to come and see unless they are able to demonstrate that they are in fact the ones in KC MO that have these powers. Therefore a demonstration is necessary for me to accept brother Kelleys challenge. I cannot accept his word that these are the people I came to see. I must know that they are in fact the ones in KC MO that has these miraculous gifts. So, I have accepted your challenge Brother Kelley on the condition that I am allowed to test these people as I described so that I know that I am getting what I paid my money to do. I would be financing a trip to KC MO to meet with those who have miraculous gifts from the Holy Spirit and therefore it is only right that I am allowed to test and see if these people do in fact have those gifts. You would not want me to behave like one who buys a "pig in a poke" would you?

Now he implies that I would not listen to people that have been healed. Oh, yes I would. When we go to the hospital and anyone is instantly and miraculously healed and jumps up from the hospital bed is immediately discharged I will love to talk with them. In fact I would probably talk until the break of the following day! Ha! But Brother Kelley does not like that plan for there is no room for fraud and trickery and lies! Ha! Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Danny I do not think it is bad theology to think of I Cor 12:10 to interpret this passage as two tongues..."to another speaking in different kinds of tongues and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of the one and the same spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines." Could this mean more than just glossia (another unlearned language)? I think so. Paul indicates that there is one spirit who gives us the many gifts, but we use them to build the body of Christ up. Now Paul does go on to argue this in 12:12-31. In I Cor. 14:28, Paul says for the person with no interpreter or they cannot interpret to "keep quite in the church and speak to himself and God." Now why would someone need to speak in another language (unlearned) if they need to speak to themselves and God. Some have labeled this a "prayer language" and I think that might acurately be it. If tongues is given by God to a person and they can not interpret or neither can anyone else, they should speak it to themselves and God, but it does not say to be quite all together. THey actually do speak it between them and God. To that person it may be jubberish, for they understand not what is being said- but they know that God understands.

Can there be two forms of tongues... I think it is very plausable.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Brother Kelley:

I have looked for this word in the dictionary and cannot find it. You used the word Duh! What dictionary of the English language is this word found so that I can know what it means. Maybe you were just practicing your tongue speaking of the type that is not a language but if this happens to be a word with a formal definition in the dictionary of the English language would you please define it for me? This terrible ignorance is just so inconvenient for me! Ha!

Then you asked:

Notice, not many in this forum want to debate you any more... I wonder why?

Well I do not know the answer to that question but it is a good one to ask, now isnt it? Yet I sincerely doubt that you have sufficient objectivity to answer that question truthfully but maybe our readers should think about that one for themselves!

My first thought is that it is not true that not many in this forum want to debate me any more because I am constantly busy writing to those who challenge and are arguing with me in this forum. I am not sure that many ever wanted to debate me in this forum. But I too do not have sufficient objectivity to answer that question so I will leave that one to our readers! Ha!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Lee, one more thing, I have never stated anywhere in my posts to have witnessed anyone coming out of the grave. Read my post. I can give you real people who have been healed. One person is a dear gentleman in our congregation. We went to a Smithton service, he went forward to be prayed for. They laid hands on him and intensly prayed for his condition. He did not fall on the ground, but he was healed. And he is still healed. He suffered from severe knee pain. After the service all the pain was gone and it has not come back. Is that a healing .... yes. Was that through a faith healer, No! It was through a Christian who prayed for him. God healed him.

When you make statments about going to the hospital - you are mocking what God can do. Can a person such as you or I go to a sick individual and pray for them and they are healed of their condition, yes it can happen if God wills it! Did the apostles, heal everyone they came in contact with... No! It is conditional upon the will and majesty of God. Can you put God into a test tube to study Him... no you can not.

BTW tickets on vangard airlines are cheap... usually $79 to $100 from Atlanta to MCI.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Brother Kelley;

You have said:

BTW tickets on vangard airlines are cheap... usually $79 to $100 from Atlanta to MCI.

Does this mean that you accept my conditions that I have stated? Does this mean that you are willing to agree that we will announce to the media that I am coming to KC MO to meet with some people who will go to the Hospital and actually heal the ones that I select of their illness and that we will then go to the graveyard to raise at least one from the dead all to prove by actual demonstration that God is doing Miracles in the name of Christ today? Believe me that we will make sure that everyone one knows that YOU are the one making these claims and arranging for the demonstration and that I am there to TEST the Spirits whether they are really of God or not.

Just say yes and I will buy my tickets at the place of my choice. I do not need a liars advice on where to buy plane tickets. Then you and I can agree in this forum right now the exact date that this event will occur and I will begin immediately to make the appropriate calls and announcements to the media. I will meet you in KC MO on that date to see an actual demonstration of these so-called miraculous gifts. So, do you agree to such a demonstration or not? If you do then simply come back in here and clearly state that you agree to this arrangement instead of merely faintly and cowardly implying" such by telling me the price of tickets to KC MO as if youare accepting my conditions but maintaining "deniablitity" so that you are not "trapped" with your own words! Ha! If I had accepted that as an agreement on your part you would have been left with a way to deny it. This is what one must watch out for when he is dealing with a deliberate and calculating LIAR!

So what is your answer Brother Kelley? Do you accept that we will have an actual DEMONSTRATION of Healing, raising the dead, and tongue speaking with the tests that I have outlined or are you afraid to accept? I want you to state in clear undeniable terms in writing in this forum that you agree to those conditions. Now do it! Or admit that you have absolutely NO FAITH in these so-called miracles that you are ever rambling and contradicting yourself about!

You are pathetic!

Brethren watch this man and see if he will even accept his own challenge which he has laid down in this tread! He does appear to be "choking" on his own words again!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Danny the answer is, you or I will ever know for sure. We can only assume that non-believing Jews were in Corinth. May they were not. I am going to assume that you mean within the church. For if you mean city- then of course there were. But that is not the issue in the scriptures I stated.

If tongues were only for the use to convert non believing Jews then why does Paul mention in I Cor 14:28 to "keep quite in the church and speak to himself and God" - concerning the lack of an interpreter. Also, Paul says in 14:4, that "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself."- now we can take that two ways or dual meanings. Can "tongue" mean another language or can it mean an edifying prayer language as well? Paul further goes on to say, "He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified." Thus Paul is trying to convey the message to the church. Whether an unbelieving Jew is in the assembly of the church- is not our concern here. Paul is talking strickly to the church... not the world at this point.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Brother Kelley;

About two of my posts back on this thread you said:

I personally will not answer your next post.

I then wrote my next post and shortly thereafter you proceeded to personally answer it! Now is this a lie? You did not say, I do not think that I will answer your next post which would have left some room for you to change your mind and still be telling the truth. But you said in clear and unmistakable terms that you would not personally answer" my next post and in a very short period of time-leaving you no time to claim that you simply forgot what you said- you proceeded to do the very thing that you clearly said you would not do!

Now I know that is a small thing but those who are in the habit of not telling the truth just cannot seem to do so in even average conversation. So it does appear that you have lied in this matter as well. What is it that makes you so averse to speaking the truth? I just do not understand why you just cannot bring yourself to do so even in matters that do not matter very much. Is it that you just do not have the capacity to tell the truth? Now there is no need to say you did not lie for you intended to tell me in clear and unmistakable terms that you would not personally answer my next post. But you did it anyway without even saying, I have changed my mind and decided to personally answer your post that I promised not to answer. Now it is fine to change your mind but be wise enough to not make promises that do not allow you to change your mind without appearing to be untruthful. In fact when one makes a promise and does not keep it because he has changed his mind he is guilty of lying to himself and others. Be careful of making such promises. But to do the opposite of what you said you were going to do without even so much as the admission that you have broken your word shows very little regard for truthfulness. That is certain. It may be that I have some old fashion values about speaking the truth but I consider the truth to be important and you have repeatedly contradicted yourself and have on several occasions made such definite statements only to ignore them completely within the very next few minutes.

Oh well, I guess we just cannot trust much what you say because we never know when you are going to act in complete violation of your words.

I just wanted to point out why it is difficult to trust that what you say is the truth. Now this is but one example but I have given numerous examples in the posts wherein you and I have had lengthy conversations. Anyone who reads the do you allow emotions in the worship" thread will find numerous such examples. For example you told Brother Danny that you had NEVER been judgmental yet in a previous post to that one you admit to having been as judgmental as the rest of us. Now I could go on and on and on with examples of a similar nature. Yet you still expect me to believe that you are able to speak the truth? Then of course there is this serious matter wherein you have deliberately lied with these words:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well. Then three days later you said:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

Now it is evident that the truth is just not something that you are careful to speak, now is it?

Your Brother in Christ,

e. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Lee, thank you for the kindness in calling me pathetic... it was really nice of you. You marvelous manners shine through.

Lee, you can come to MCI (KC International) all you want, but I will not go to a grave yard- you are foolish to think that. God can do what He desires. I never said I can raise the dead, nor do I know anyone who has claimed to raise the dead. Maybe you should try Benny Hinn- I hear he is in Texas now- try him.

If you do come, yes we can go to the hospital. You and I can both pray for the sick, will they recover, that is up to God.

Perhaps we can go to a snake handling church... rattlers are my specialty, but if you want your own snake to dance with, a copperhead will do nicely- please do so. Oh maybe we can sacrifice a chicken or two- that will do nicely too. But, if you really want to have fun- we can put arsenic in our drinks- that will give you a rush like no other.

But if you insist on an old fashion laying on of hands as Mark 16:18 says "they will place their hands on the sick and they will get well." But, since I am the "master deceiver" and a traitor to the cause of Christ call on my Elders and we will all do what is instructed..."Is there anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith in will make the sick person well." (James 5:14-15).

Lee, but if you insist to go to a grave yard- we can go to my six great uncle's grave- he is Daniel Boone buried in Frankfort KY- maybe he will raise and we will ask him about his adventures. Hey, that sounds like fun! Oh you little grave digger you! Then you me and Daniel Boone can sit on the tombstone eating pizza and teach each other tongues. Halaumbashalla!

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Hey Lee, ok I am sorry- but you started it... na na a bo bo! I was just responding to you absurd comments... ok so I changed my mind for the time being- give it up. Lee lighten up. It sounds to me you were toilet trained at gun point!

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Wow! The length of this thread almost doubled overnight. But was anything really worthwhile said?

The "Letters to the Editor" page in the South China Morning Post newspaper here in Hong Kong used to be a very lively place. People would debate all kinds of issues -- sometimes at considerable length. It doesn't seem to happen as much any more. I'm not sure if that's because of different editors, changing cultures, or simply that such debates are now carried on in other fora, such as over the internet.

Anyway, one thing that used to happen was the when a line of correspondence was still going even after the participants had pretty much exhausted the subject, and it was degenerating into wrangling and name-calling, the editor would add a notice at the end of one final letter, saying "This correspondence is now closed."

I wonder if it is now time to do something like that with this thread. For anyone who wants to continue the discussion of speaking in languages (hmm! it sounds different when you put it that way -- but that's what it actually means!), there are two new threads on the subject. As for who lied -- AKelley, Lee, Link, or whoever -- my personal opinion is that that discussion, if continued at all, would be better pursued by e-mail among the "combatants" themselves. The same with challenges and counter-challenges to fly here or there to heal the sick or raise the dead.

That's just my personal opinion, but I seriously doubt if ANYONE is being either edified or educated by the present wrangling.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Ben, you are right I will close this thread or at least my part. I am sorry for any ill feelings caused. I do repent for my part in this. Truly this does not edify the body of Christ at all.

"Lord Jesus I pray that you will forgive me of all my wrong doing and that you reconcile myself and Lee to be true brothers in the faith without bickering and complaining. Forgive me for any misunderstandings that have occured. And Lord I will forgive Lee for his part against me... I do pray that you will bless his life greatly...Amen"

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

I just got back from vacation. I skimmed over parts of the posts. I'd like to add my apology for joining inthe making this thread continue. I can do my partto end the conversation by not reading the rest of Lee Saffold's writings on this thread.

Ya, sudah.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000