Scared everyone off, Huh?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Answers

Link....

I have been observing this little discourse and thought I would make a couple of observations.

1) If E. Lee would have put things the way I have seen you put things over the last couple of posts.....Connie would have been on here accusing him of "not having the fruit of the Spirit"....of being "unloving"....and flat out "unChristian." But I guess the old double standard applies again.

2) Trying to gain an upper hand in an argument by bringing in someone's upbringing is....well...shall we say....very poor and shows the shallowness of your ability to stick to the issues.

3) The same can be said for bringing into question his Christianity. Truth by its very nature rules out all opposing views.....and those who are being corrected often resort to other avenues because they do not want to give up their held beliefs. If Lee (or I) have and/or come across as "dogmatic"....that's only because that is the nature of truth. Truth is not relative. The thrill is not always in the "hunt."....it is often times in "the kill"...(i.e., the establishment of truth).

4) I cannot speak for E. Lee....but one of the reasons I have not posted on the forum and have not really checked in that often is because of the mindless dribble that has filled the boards. It is no longer the Christian Church board....which was designed primarily for people in the Christian Church to discuss issues among themselves. It was not the original purpose of the board to become the stop off for every person who believes it was given them by God....to convert those of us in the Restoration Movement.

Since you have been on here.....your agenda has not been the search for truth....it has simply been to press your view of tongues and house churches.....period.

I have absolutely no desire to discuss either with you. If you want to read E. Lee's position on the Holy Spirit (as well as mine and many in the Restoration Movement) then simply read the writings of Alexander Campbell on the subject. Do I agree with everything he says?? Probably not. But he most succintly and clearly puts into writing my views on the subject....so why should I bother writing volumes to debate you which gets....nowhere. If you want to know...read.

You want to make the whole issue of "house churches" a test of real Christianity. That, in the view of the RM....is a non-issue for which we do not think Christ's body should be be split over. If you like meeting in houses...and it peels your banana....great. If people such as myself have the resources and can pool those resources together to build a common meeting place.....great. It's a matter of opinion...not doctrine. There is no "thus saith the Lord" for "where" you should meet......just that you are to meet.

You accused E. Lee of riding a "high horse."

Me thinks yours is just a little higher.

With regards,

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

This place has been majorly slow. Maybe all the posters said just about everything they had to say.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“Scared everyone off, Huh?”

It has been quite some time since you posted anything in this forum. Would we be justified in saying that you were “scared off” during the height of various controversies and now that there is a lull in the activity you are bold enough to return and complain of the boredom.

If you have something useful to contribute then why not give us some benefit of your writing. It takes very little time to complain and even less time to wait for others to provide material for you to “think” about. But reasoned contributions to this forum require some time, thought, and work. If you were making any reasonable contributions to this forum you would not be so quick to charge those who do contribute regularly to this forum with being “scared off”. Your would probably be preparing some well written contribution of your own and would have little time to think that others were doing anything other than spending a portion of their spare time to prepare a significant and edifying article worthy of our readers time and serious consideration.

It is interesting to me that it has not crossed your mind to think that there is the possibility that at this very moment some wise, faithful and serious Christian is preparing diligently in his or her spare time after work some good things for us to consider. And if you had been doing the same in your absence you would be able to post something of interest and value upon your return. Instead you have prepared nothing, thought of little and now you enter complaining of boredom. Many of us have just concluded lengthy and intense discussions that you appear to have missed. They were anything but “boring” and it is sad that you have missed them.

And for one who is still waiting for “Holy fire” to come down from heaven into this forum your complaints of boredom are leveled at God, the Holy Spirit as well. Even he has not contributed the thing that you have requested of Him and hence you are “bored”. No one is contributing what Connie wants when see wants it so she is bored. Are we to be concerned for her boredom? Even God does not care if she is bored and neither do we.

And Brother Link thinks that everyone has “said all that they have to say”. How ridiculous! I for one have much that I would like to say and do not have sufficient time or leisure to say it. If my posts in this forum over the past year prove anything concerning this matter they prove that I cannot even begin to say all that I would like to say. I have work to do, as do many others, and can only give a few hours each week to this forum. If I were a full time “paid” preacher of the gospel I would spend a great deal of time preparing and writing in forums such as these. But since God has seen fit to support me through providing me with a good Job I must do my work first and write only when I have enough time to do so after work. In fact, I have been over the past few days, since my last contribution, which was on March 9th, preparing something for this forum, and I cannot post it until I am finished with it. All this during the time that Connie thinks everyone, including her self, has been “scared off” and while Link was reaching his “brilliant and well thought out” conclusion that everyone has just emptied their bucket and ran out of things to say. He forgets about the time that we Did not hear from him while he was gone and all anyone could do was show concern for his life since there were some bombings in Indonesia. Not one person wrote and said that brother Link had just about “said all that they have to say”.

If you have something to say, say it. But do not come in here complaining that others have “nothing to say because they have nothing left to say” unless you have proof that it is true. But like most of the assertions that we have read in this forum from this “duo” these recent complaints are nothing more than “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

I have been lurking for several months and have posted a couple of items on this forum. Mr. Saffold, may I respectfully suggest that you lighten up just a bit? I have read everyone's response in several discussions....I realize the "disagreements" everyone has on particular matters - but you do come off as rather accusatory in many of your responses. I sincerely do not mean this in a nasty way, but I do believe that if you would show a little more grace towards others (as we have been shown by our Lord), people would be much more inclined to want to read and consider your posts. That might be a good rule of thumb all around as it seems that several posts end up being personal attacks rather than earnest discussions among Christian brothers and sisters. Just my humble opinion. I truly mean nothing disrespectful in it. And I do appreciate you working full time in a secular job while preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ....my husband did that for 16 years and it was a blessing in disguise as God used it to humble us and give us real insight into the hearts of others!

May God bless you abundantly, Vicki

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

E. Lee,

What is wrong with you, man? YOu need to get over yourself.

Look at Connie's initial post. She didn't say SHE scared everyone off. There was no noun in that post.

E. Lee, you have shown that you can write pages, even if you really ahve nothing edifying to say. You have an ability to make mountains out of mole hills Your post, is as usual, full of accusations- trying to tear people apart over every little word. Why don't you get down off your high horse, examine your heart, and repent over whatever it is that gives you such a rotten attitude towards others.

You agreed months ago to respond in the 'Left Behind' thread. You never finished your response, but yet you have time to write pages of mean, unedifying, accusatory messages like the one above, explaining in ironic leangth how that you don't have time to post.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Vickie:

You have said:

“I have been lurking for several months and have posted a couple of items on this forum.”

I have known for some time that you were out there “lurking” as you call it And I appreciate the fact that while lurking that you graciously condescend to read what you consider to be my “accusatory responses” to false doctrine and false accusations against other writers in this forum.

And I appreciate your suggestion, which I quote as follows:

“Mr. Saffold, may I respectfully suggest that you lighten up just a bit? I have read everyone's response in several discussions....I realize the "disagreements" everyone has on particular matters - but you do come off as rather accusatory in many of your responses. I sincerely do not mean this in a nasty way, but I do believe that if you would show a little more grace towards others (as we have been shown by our Lord), people would be much more inclined to want to read and consider your posts.”

I believe that your suggestion is sincere and intended to help me gain a hearing, which you assume that my particular approach fails to gain. However, your response is proof in itself that my post are actually being read by those who “disapprove” of my pointed way of responding. In fact, I have no lack of e-mail responses to the things that I write in this forum and when the discussion is an important one there is no lack of correspondence with me in this forum of the subjects discussed. So, I do not think that you have shown that your assumption that “no one reads what Mr. Saffold writes because of his accusatory tone” is true. In fact the direct opposite is evident to all that thoughtfully read regularly in this forum. And the last thing that can be an accurate charge is that our discussions are “boring” as was the accusation leveled at everyone, unkindly I might add, by the person who initiated this thread. And it is interesting to me that you find my response to the subject of this thread “accusatory” while you find absolutely nothing “accusatory” in the false charge of boredom and cowardice leveled by words “Bor-i-i-i-ng!!!!" Which is the title of this thread and the “scared everyone off, Huh?” comment gave you no feeling that the initiator of this thread should “lighten up just a bit” now did it? It seems that you selectively chose to see those who possibly oppose doctrines that you accept as being “accusatory” and those who have a tendency to agree with you as kind, loving and sincere.

Then you say:

“That might be a good rule of thumb all around as it seems that several posts end up being personal attacks rather than earnest discussions among Christian brothers and sisters.”

Often, when combating false doctrine and contending earnestly for the faith as we are commanded to do (Jude 3) it is difficult to separate the deceptive and devious tactics from the false teachers who use them. So that it is impossible to attack their doctrine without appearing in the eyes of the unlearned to be attacking the false teacher. You should read the controversies of the Bible and you will find a very “accusatory” tone coming from the defenders of the faith. And even when the gospel was preached in Acts the second chapter you find that Peter said to them concerning the crucifixion of Christ, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with WICKED HANDS have crucified and slain.” (Acts 2:23). I can just see you know calling Peter, the inspired apostle of Christ, aside and telling him to “lose the accusatory tone because no one is going to listen to you that way Peter”! But we are told that when they heard Peter’s words, which were “accusatory”, they were “pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? And they were told to be “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and then they that gladly received his “accusatory words” were baptized and that day there was added to them 3,000 souls. I am sure that those souls are thankful for Peter’s “accusatory words”! The truth is often “accusatory” in nature and none can speak it without conveying the accusation contained in that message. When we fight against false teachers there is implied in the very fact that they are teaching doctrines contrary to the doctrine of Christ the accusation that they are against Christ our Lord.

Listen to the words of Steven in his controversy with the Jews, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them, which showed before the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. Who have received the Law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into the heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.”

Now we all know that Steven’s words were without doubt “accusatory”. He accused the fathers of these Jews of persecuting and murdering the prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah. And he accused these Jews themselves of actually betraying and murdering the very Messiah who was foretold by the prophets whom their fathers murdered. Then he accused them of not keeping the Law of which they were so fond. And his speech began by calling them “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.” And we all know that these Jews were so “cut to the heart’ and angry at hearing these truths that they stoned Steven to death. And I can only imagine your attending Stephen’s funeral. And telling his brethren that he was responsible for his own death. And the failure of the gospel to change the hearts of his murderers because of his “accusatory tone” and that if the others would listen to your advice they would get better results if they would just “lose the accusatory tone”. It is impossible to speak the truth and eliminate the accusations that come with it. Men are sinners and with out God and without hope in this world and until we come to Christ we will be eternally lost and worthy of death. (Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23). Men are guilty before God of many offenses and he who speaks for God cannot but tell the truth with little concern of who are accused by it. Now, I am referring in my remarks to your words concerning the other post wherein I have been defending the truth from error such as the recent defense against Calvinism. In this particular post I was complaining of the false accusation leveled by the initiator of this thread against the writers in this forum that they had been “scared off”. That accusation was not the truth and the tone of it was far more offensive that my response to it. But you gave no notice to that false accusation now did you? I wonder why? The difference, in this case, is in the hearer and not the messenger of the truth. Same message different heart and ears. The difference between those changeable hearts open to the truth and those stiff-necked heart and ears that cannot be turned from lies by even the gospel of Christ which is the “power of God unto salvation” to all them that believe it. (Romans 1:16). But you come to the defense of those who issue FALSE ACCUSATIONS. I notice that you did not complain that my accusations in this forum were false, now did you? You simply complain that I make accusations and care not in the least if they are true. Yet, in the very process you ignore the false accusations that are made by false teachers because they generally speak “soft words” and tickle your ears. No one who loves truth can be indifferent to it so as to fail to accuse those opposed to it of their opposition and tell the truth of their condition before God in relation to it. Only the most unloving person would fail to tell the truth out of fear of being “accusatory” or over concern that their message will not be heard.

We can see in these two events found in scripture some important similarities and contrast. We see the similarity of telling the truth even if it means accusing those guilty of wrongdoing of their crimes and the similarity of being plain, clear and offering irrefutable evidence for the charges of which they were accused. And we see the contrast between two diverse groups of hearers. Those who were “pricked in their hearts” and those who were “cut to the heart” and those who repented and obeyed the gospel and those who stiffened their necks against the gospel and the truth and killed the preacher of the gospel. Same truth told to two different groups of people in the same manner received opposite results! And the difference was not in the message or the manner in which it was delivered but rather in the hearers and the condition of their hearts.

These facts have never changed. The same heat that melts butter hardens clay. The difference is not in the heat but the material exposed to it. “The seed of the Kingdom is the word of God” (Luke 8:11) and the same seed falls on different ground and produces different results but that seed remains the same and the indiscriminate casting of it into every place is the same. But the ground upon which it falls is vastly different. Some will produce fruit a hundred fold and some will whither and die and some will be stolen away by birds and some choked to death by a crowd of thorns of cares of this life and false doctrine and confused doctrines of men. The preaching of the truth is not for those concerned about how others “perceive them” and the impression that they make upon their fellowmen. Read about the prophets and the apostles. Study the controversies of the Bible and see if you can find even the slightest attempt at compromise concerning the truth. You will find in such a study that the concern you have over the impression being made by those who speak truthful accusations against those who resist the Holy Spirit in His inspired word is completely unwarranted.

Then you say:

“ Just my humble opinion. “

I suppose that we are to gather from such a statement that your opinion is a “humble one”. Saying that it is humble does not make it so, now does it? No opinion is humble that rebels against the truth of God. And your desire that we avoid speaking the truth when it makes us appear “accusatory” is diametrically opposed and is in direct rebellion against God and the examples we have in His holy word. No such opinion can be accurately called a “humble one”. You are not the one who decides if an opinion is humble. Those reading it will make that decision and those who make such a statement betray, in making it, that they fear that others might perceive their opinion as being arrogant and are merely seeking to avoid having their opinion challenged.

Then you want us to not think that you are being “disrespectful” as follows:

“I truly mean nothing disrespectful in it..”

I do not doubt this in the least. I sincerely believe that you intentions are sincere and that you are not aware that you have been deceived into believing that an accusatory tone is unbecoming of one who preaches the truth of the gospel of Christ. But I sincerely hope that the above examples from the word of God will make it clear to you that such a view of the matter is not in the least bit true.

But, despite my “accusatory tone” which you so much dislike you kindly say:

“And I do appreciate you working full time in a secular job while preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ..”

I hope that your words were sincere and I think that they are but can you not see the contrast between what you say in the beginning of your post and your final words? I can assure you that I will preach the gospel of Christ even if not one single person on this planet appreciates it and I do not labor for the praise of men and do not need anyone’s appreciation. But I am touched by your kindness in expressing appreciation though I cannot understand your appreciation of something that you have above stated that you do not like.

Then you speak that your husband did the same.

“..my husband did that for 16 years and it was a blessing in disguise as God used it to humble us and give us real insight into the hearts of others!”

I send to your husband my sincere respect for his willingness to do such a thing. And I can assure you that those who preach the truth will often be required to do such things. But I just cannot understand your language expressing the notion that God used such to “humble” you? Are you saying that those being supported by the church to preach Christ cannot be humble? And that this “experience” gave you “real insight into the hearts of others”? Are you saying that after this experience you can now read and judge the hearts of others? Or are you simply saying that the experience gave you a better understanding of others? And if it did so many wonderful things for you why are you no longer doing it? I just do not understand what you mean. God’s word is the only thing on this planet that can discern the “heart”. (Heb. 4:12) and no experience can give one this power which is the sole province of God alone. Let us use it to judge our own hearts and let us preach it so that others can have insight into their own hearts. But let us not talk in the language of sectarian “Ashdod”. Who cannot pronounce the “shibboleth” of God’s eternal truth spoken only by the faithful saints of God according to the word of God delivered and revealed by the Holy Spirit of God through the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

“E. Lee, What is wrong with you, man? YOu need to get over yourself.”

Nothing is wrong with me brother Link and I have nothing about myself to “get over’ as you put it. I was clearly responding to the false assertion that the forum was “boring” and that those not responding at this time had been “sacred off” which was also pathetically false.

Then you say:

“Look at Connie's initial post. She didn't say SHE scared everyone off. There was no noun in that post.”

Look at my post again and you will easily see that I did not say that SHE had claimed to that SHE had scared anyone off but rather that those not responding had been sacred off. I said nothing about a noun in that independent clause. It was not even a complete sentence. But it implied that those not responding were not doing so because they had been sacred off. And I was not speaking for myself because I have been responding.

Then you say:

“E. Lee, you have shown that you can write pages, even if you really ahve nothing edifying to say.”

That is of course your opinion and you are welcome to it even though you have not one shred of evidence to support its truthfulness.

Then you say:

“You have an ability to make mountains out of mole hills”

Again we see another assertion without proof. Your above statement overlooks the simple fact that one man’s mountain is another man’s molehill. I will leave it to the judgement of our readers whether my writing has such an effect as you describe.

Then you accusingly say:

“Your post, is as usual, full of accusations- trying to tear people apart over every little word.”

It seems a little bit like the “pot calling the kettle black to me”. Accusation is ok if Link is the one doing it. But for the rest of us it is “trying to tear people apart”. I do not think that anyone in this forum will admit to having actually being personally torn apart by my responses. And if anyone did I believe I could show that such an accusation is untrue.

Then you say:

“Why don't you get down off your high horse, examine your heart, and repent over whatever it is that gives you such a rotten attitude towards others.”

If you will prove that I am on a “high horse” and that it is wrong for me to ride such a horse I would be glad to repent of such. But just because you have this opinion without even the slightest good reason for holding it is not sufficient reason for me to repent. I will repent of any sin that anyone convicts me of having committed but I will not repent of sins of which I am falsely accused by false teachers such as yourself who do not like the fact that I oppose their false teaching at every opportunity. I examine my heart daily and I have more evidence and facts available concerning what is in my heart than you. And having made such examination with far more facts available to me concerning what is in my heart I can tell you that your judgement concerning what is in my heart is completely contrary to all of the facts in the case. God is the only one who knows more about my heart and what is in it than I know and he will judge me righteously and I am content with His judgement and look forward to that great day with anticipation. Every Lord’s day, when I commune with Christ at the blessed table where we break bread I examine my heart and so partake of His body and blood. And I have nothing to repent of concerning these matters that you express.

Then you say:

“You agreed months ago to respond in the 'Left Behind' thread. You never finished your response, but yet you have time to write pages of mean, unedifying, accusatory messages like the one above, explaining in ironic leangth how that you don't have time to post. “

You deliberately leave the impression with these words that I made some kind of agreement with someone, you imply that it was yourself, that I would respond to the nonsense that you have taught in the “left behind” thread. The truth is that I did respond to you in that thread and I told you that I was writing an article on the consequences of premillianialism and that I would publish it in the forum. I made no agreement to put it in the “left behind” thread. And I did not state when I would publish it. I am not finished with it and have been working on it for some time. When I am finished you will have it published in the forum and not one moment before. But I have made no agreement with you or anyone else in the left behind thread. And your making this claim is false and unless you have simply forgotten what was said there or you have misunderstood the facts related to what was said there you are deliberately lying about that matter. I prefer to think that you have simply forgotten. I have written far more prior to the 9th March in the Calvinism verses the scriptural design of baptism thread than this brief response to your and Connie’s nonsense in this thread. The post to which you refer was not so long and it was justifiably accusatory and it is not wrong to do such. I have written much more in the Calvinism verses the scriptural design of baptism thread. And those post were quite lengthy therefore I was not saying that I did not have any time to post but rather that I cannot always respond to every thing that I disagree with. And that Connie had overlooked the posts that had been written in other threads where significant discussions were ongoing when she came in and claimed that everyone had be en “sacred away”.

You will just have to be patient in waiting for my post concerning the consequences of premillenialism. It as well as Calvinism is a pernicious false doctrine and when I finish writing it you will have it. But it is not written as a response to you. I had planned to write it long before some one started the “left behind” thread and my responding to your nonsense in that thread.

I have never failed to respond to you when we are engaged directly in a discussion. But in the Left behind thread you were talking I responded to your nonsense and you responded to me and I said that I was writing something that I would post for all, not just you, to consider. I will keep my promise. But in the mean time maybe you should “get over yourself” and wait until you see that thread appear and then you will see why I speak of not having time to respond. When one goes into great detail on a particular subject it takes time and I do not have the time to do it on all subjects. If I respond to anything it means that I have the time to do so. But there is a difference between what I consider a short response (though you call it a long one) and a detailed exposition of a matter. The latter is what I was speaking of in the “left behind” thread.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Vickie,

Don't even bother getting into it with this guy. Just hit the page down key. Anyone else who sees this thread can see he has a problem, jumping over people and spewing bile just for those little comments above just doesn't make sense. Don't give him any ammo to slander you with. You see how he can even turn a comment like 'in my humble opinion' into a reason for an attack.

Romans 1 lists contentious in that list of sinful attributes right after talking about homosexuality. Let's not get drawn into this man's web.

Maybe you can join me in praying that God will correct this man for the bitterness of his heart that shows up in his writings. He has acknowledged that he 'hath not the Spirit' in him. No wonder his writings are so bitter. Let us pray that God will correct him, take away the 'pleasure of sin for a season' and just make his sinfulness mysery. Let's pray that his root of bitterness will not defile others, and that the Lord would bring correction to him. If he believes like this in 'real life' it can get him into trouble. Let's pray that his congregation will discipline him for his un-Christlike behavior, cut him off from fellowship, and perhaps deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh till he repents for his unloving and unChristlike behavior, or that the Lord would humble him through some other means. They don't need this kind of leavenous behavior in their church. Railing and slandering. Some people act normal in real life, but are just plain obnoxious hiding behind a PC, though.

Unfortunately, it seems like most posters on this discussioun forum either don't see a problem, don't know how to deal with it, or don't take church discipline seriously enough to seriously get on this joker's case. Or maybe they have just done it through email. Or maybe the other people on these forums don't really read his long railing posts either.

And let's ignore him. I can understand if you want to try to reason with him. When I first came on here, someone else took the route of ignoring him. I thought I'd try to reason with him about his behavior. I can understand if you want to try to for yourself. Now, I think I'll try to ignore him unless I have a reason to talk to him.

Lee, you need to repent and get your heart right with God. The way you treat some people on this forum is not good fruit. It's just plain rotten. You need to have some fear of the Lord. You need to walk in the Spirit and stop writing carnal (or demonic?) garbage against brothers and sisters on these forums.

Don't worry about it. Just because this guy says a bunch of junk about you, as he says 'doesn't make it so.'

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Link wrote to Vicki:

Unfortunately, it seems like most posters on this discussioun forum either don't see a problem, don't know how to deal with it, or don't take church discipline seriously enough to seriously get on this joker's case. Or maybe they have just done it through email. Or maybe the other people on these forums don't really read his long railing posts either.

Link: I can only respond for myself here. But I definately do not see any problem with E. Lee, therefore it is not necessary to *deal* with him.

His post to Vicki sums up how we should confront false teachings. Those who oppose taking a strong stand for the truth seem to be afraid of confrontation.

As for reading his posts, I have been reading them for over a year. And re-reading them. Someone who loves the Lord as much as he does, and stands firm in his faith is a treasure to me.

When I was still searching for the truth, I would write to Lee. He helped me tremendously and is actually responsible for my decision to be baptized by immersion.

I learned to love the Lord and study the Bible because of him and his encouragement.

Regards,

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Cynthia,

I wrote a long message in response to you, but then decided to just email it to Saffold. I can understand your response based on what you've seen in this thread.

I'm glad you decided to get immersion, and you may well have benefited from something you read from Mr. Saffold about making that decision. I'm not saying tha tsaffold can't say or contribute something useful, but Saffold has been a trouble-maker in various areas in this discussion forum. It's all in the archives for everyone to read. I don't read all of his posts. In fact, I've only skimmed parts of the posts above. I've read enough of his accusatory sophistry.

Saffold sometimes singles people out and writes abusively to them. One Christian Church Pastor disagreed with him on an issue, and he filled up volumes of accusations that the man was a liar based on some quotes that _he_ considered to constitute a lie. The other people involved int eh thread who commented on it, myself included, did not consider the pastor to have lied when all was said and done. I think there were perhaps for or five others who did not consider there to be proof that the pastor had lied, based on the quotes Lee used. The pastor wrote that he had 'experienced tongues within himself' and that he had not spoken in tongues. Later the man clarified that he sensed a sense of peace when someone else spoke in tongues, and that he hadn't spoken in tongues himself. Saffold repeatedly and shamelessly called the man a liar, and in later threads, accused the man of being a false teacher. These accusations are found in old threads. To my knowledge, Lee has yet to repent for his slanderous remarks. Lee's comments are saved in previous threads. I don't need to rehash them here for him. I've already rehashed them in the past. Lee still refuses to acknowledge his need to repent.

Saffold also repeatedly uses the 'Just because you say X, doesn't make it so' routine, like that comment above about just because Vickie said her opinion was humbled doesn't make it so. Imo, that kind of comment is just obnoxious. Vickie, an elder's wife involved in church ministry, wrote a, well mannered, soft-spoken, kindly written word of correction, and she got a rude response like that. It may not bother you because you haven't read it as much as I have. I'm pretty firm with Saffold because of his past behavior and his unrepentant continuance in his behavior and attitude. Normally, I just carry on a normal, respectful conversation. I'm not always harsh in everything I write. Saffold is an exceptional case.

Connie's oringial message in this thread was not that big a deal. Saffold madde a moutnain out of a molehill. My comment was an attack on no one, yet Saffold attacked me for it. He mentioned people being concerned for me in Indonesia- as if what I wrote was an attack on these people. A normal response to what I wrote might have been another comment on how quiet it's been on this forum, or a suggestion of a new topic, not attacks.

I can understand why my comments above seem to make little sense based just on what has been posted here. There are a lot of threads in the past that one would need to read to understand the background of my comments.

If you want to find a good Christian role model, mentor, there are other, better role-models who are on this list (or used to be.) Don't immitate Saffold's style of arguing. Jesus didn't pick apart people's words in a childish manner to argue. He didn't twist their ideas.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Link:

you have said:

"Some people act normal in real life, but are just plain obnoxious hiding behind a PC, though."

You know where I live. I live in Atlanta Georgia. My address is 2608 Tree Summit Parkway, Atalanta Ga. 30096. You are welcome to come to my home anytime that you would like to have a face to face discussion with me concerening the word of God or anything for that matter and I will cook you a nice dinner and we will argue until the sun comes up the next day. But do not expect my manner to be in the least bit different in person than it is in the forum. For what I am doing is right and in harmony with the very word of God and I will resist false doctrine in every place for the souls of men are at stake. This offer applies to anyone in the forum. You are all welcome at my home and I encourage any that happen to be coming to Atlanta to please make a point of stopping by to visit. And you will be able to decide for yourself concerning whether brother Link is telling you the truth when he implies that I am in some way "hiding behind a computer". I have just removed that excuse. You all have my address. And I will even give to all of you my phone number. You can call me collect, if necessary, and I will pay the charges. My phone number is 770-622-0628. I am usually home some time after six in the evening Eastern time.

Brother Link, you have relatives in Georgia and you may come to see them some day. And when you do you can easily find me if you would like to take these matters up face to face.

So much for your nonsense implication that I may be hiding behind this computer. There is no hiding now, is there? Anyone in this forum that wants to face me and discuss these matters knows where I live and they know my phone number. All of you are welcome in my home for Bible study and if you bring false doctrine with you it will meet with the exact same treatment in my home that it receives from my responses in this forum.

Again, Link, my address is: 2608 Tree Summit Parkway, Atlanta, Ga. 30096 and My phone number is 770-622-0628 if you or anyone else would like to visit or call me and talk with me in person about these subjects that we discuss in this forum you are more than welcome.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

Thanks for the invitation. Quite honestly, in good conscience, I could not eat with you or have fellowship with you, as I understand the word of God now.

Paul writes in I Cor. 5:11:

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

I explained some of the details of your slander above. I could site other passages which would not permit me, within the bounds of conscience and understanding of the word of God, to knowingly eat with you at your house unless you repent from the sins you have committed on this forum. If all this occurred within the context of a local church fellowship, I should go get two witnesses and if you continued to refuse to repent, accuse you before the whole church. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. You need to get the leaven out of your life and attitude so it doesn't spread to others around you.

I don't have a problem with you, Lee, but with your sins. Your argumentative attitude is a problem, but that is not the reason I wouldn't want to eat with you. If you slander someone wrongly, time doesn't make it go away. You are supposed to acknowledge your sin and make amends. Instead, you just consider yourself to be righteous.

I John grants us a promise of forgiveness of sins _IF_ we aknowledge our sins. I don't know how you sleep at night.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

“I don't have a problem with you, Lee, but with your sins. Your argumentative attitude is a problem, but that is not the reason I wouldn't want to eat with you. If you slander someone wrongly, time doesn't make it go away. You are supposed to acknowledge your sin and make amends. Instead, you just consider yourself to be righteous.”

You have not proven that I have “slandered” anyone. You do nothing more than assert it. The case with Brother Kelley is clear for all honest people to review in the tread entitled “Do you allow Emotions in the Worship” and in that thread I proved that brother Kelley deliberately lied to the readers in this forum. Anyone desiring to investigate the facts can go there to read for themselves. I have nothing in regard to this discussion that I had with that false teacher A. Kelley and his deliberate lies. He needs to repent for having told those lies and you should repent for having supported those lies.

Concerning eating with me, I did not give that invitation to you only. I did not give it out of any desire to fellowship with you for I have no fellowship with those who teach false doctrine. It was simply mentioned as a matter of common courtesy given to anyone visiting my home. And the offer of my address was given to demonstrate to all in this forum that I am not “hiding behind my computer as you falsely charged. The fact is that you have now been invited to my home and you have my phone number and you can no longer claim that I am merely “hiding behind my computer”. My offer to you has therefore served its purpose in refuting your nonsense regarding that issue.

My argumentative “attitude” is just, right and acceptable to God. (Jude 3). My charges leveled at Brother Kelley were just and accurate and I will not with draw them nor repent of having made them for they were the truth and you have not even remotely come close to proving otherwise, nor has anyone else. Those charges against him stand now and they will stand in the judgement against him if he does not repent.

And your language is this thread is of the exact nature of the language that you falsely condemn in me. It seems to me that if you were truly concerned about these things that you would not commit the sins that you accuse me of committing in the very process of a hypocritical attempt to “persuade me to repent of them”. What you need is not more words full of “sounds and fury signifying nothing” but more facts and evidence to support your false and unproven claims.

All who are interested in this matter can go to the archives and investigate the matter for themselves. As for me, I will continue to resist false doctrine and I have no scriptural reason to change anything that I have done in my response to false doctrine and false teachers and deliberate liars that I have exposed in this forum.

I sleep quite peacefully for I have done the will of God. And the rest is sweet indeed.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

link to the brother kelley thread to which you speak, please?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Lurk,

I think the thread is but it is so long, that it is it is difficult for me to get far enough down the page to verify it. The conversation spread into other threads as well. If you look at the threads up above that one that deal with miracles or the Holy Spirit in the uncategorized section, you may be able to find them. My server is not acting so fast right now for me to find all the threads.

You might also want to try

I'm not sure about either since my machine won't scroll down the whole of either of the threads.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Lurk,

Sorry, I was mistaken. Like Lee said, the post was in 'Do you allow Emotions in Worship?'

Lee,

you wrote, >>The case with Brother Kelley is clear for all honest people to review in the tread entitled “Do you allow Emotions in the Worship” and in that thread I proved that brother Kelley deliberately lied to the readers in this forum. <

So what are you trying to say here by _all honest people._' Do you mean to imply that those who disagree with your accusation that this man lied are dishonest. If I remember right, Benjamin Rees disagreed with you, and didn't think you had evidence to show that this brother ententionally lied. I think another poster or two that you are not generally abusive to disagreed with you as well. That's not even counting me, Connie, and of course the brother himself, who disagreed with your assertion that you 'proved' that this brother lied. In fact, as I recall, you were the only person who expressed the idea that you thought their was 'proof' of a deliberate lie. The brother used unclear, maybe even poor, wording.

All that you proved is how unreasonable and obnoxious you can be.

Btw, I didn't mean to imply that you were only obnoxious when hiding behind a PC. I just meant to suggest that as a possibility. It was not an accusation that you are definitely only obnoxious when hiding behind a PC. For all I know, you may be obnoxious ast times in person. Besides, giving out an address doesn't prove that you don't show more social graces in person than over a PC.

As for my tone toward you, I am acting in accordance with my principles. If you'll notice, I don't act this way toward other people on the forum, only toward you, because of your attitude and the way you slander people from time to time.

Also, you've taught plenty of false doctrine. The Bible teaches: 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The Bible teaches 'for to one is given...' and you teach that these things aren't given to believers today. Your teaching contradict the teaching of scripture. 'Forbid not to speak with tongues' is an apostolic command. So is 'Desire to prophesy.' But what does E. Lee Saffold believe about these things? If you want to call me a false teacher because I believe the Bible, then that just makes you just plain wrong. If you want to call Bro. Kelley a false teacher because he believes in the verses you don't, then what does that make you? Youi need to repent and just believe the truth of the Bible that you quote from so much.

In the Bible, we read: John 7:38-39 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

But what does E. Lee Saffold teach? I've read where he taught that believers nowadays don't have the Holy Spirit in them. Saffold's pnuemetology would have us just trying to use our own minds to understand and obey the Bible.

But how can we obey without the Spirit. Paul wrotein Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

So how are we supposed to do good without the power of the Spirit. Our flesh doesn't have the good to empower it to do well. Romans 8 explains about the indwelling Spirit giving life to our mortal bodies. But Lee's pnuematology, unless he has recanted, just has Christians without the Holy Spirit inside of them. Wow, carnal minds and the Bible- sounds like the tools the Pharisees were using.

And Lee has the gall to go around accusing others of being false teachers- though he has confessed that he himself has not the Spirit dwelling in him. The false teachers in Jude were characterized as those who did not have the Spirit. v. 19.

Saffold wrote, >You have not proven that I have “slandered” anyone. <

Let me give a Saffold-esque response, just for effect.

You say that I have not proven that you have not slandered anyone. Well, the fact that you say that doesn't prove that it is so. You expect everyone to believe you just because you said it. Well, the fact that you said I haven't proved it doesn't make it so, now does it.... et.c etc. [saying the ame thing over and over again picking apart phrase after phrase, with a few unjustified inuendoes thrown in for 5 pages...]

The evidence is in those earlier threads for all to see.

If you treat your wife and kids like you do people on this forum, you can do a lot of damage to them. If you have a kid, and he comes to you and says 'Daddy, I got an A on my math test today, do you give him the old routine you use on here, 'Well, you say you got an A in math, but just because you say you did, doesn't make it so, now does it. you expect me to believe you got an A just because you said so...'? I hope you aren't like that to your kids in real life. I do pray for you.

You may try to justify yourself, and claim you are acting like Jesus did to false teachers. How do you act to yourself when you teach yoru false doctrines Lee? I don't see you accusing yourself? Vickie just popped in here and made a very meek comment, and you gave here the old 'just because you say it is doesn't mean it is so' routine about whether or not her opinion was humble. You've got an attitude problem. Don't try to blame your attitude problem on Jesus. Repent and take it to the cross.

And don't expect me to be soft on your sin or your attitude.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

Lee, you wrote, >>The case with Brother Kelley is clear for all honest people to review in the tread entitled “Do you allow Emotions in the Worship” and in that thread I proved that brother Kelley deliberately lied to the readers in this forum. < So what are you trying to say here by _all honest people._' Do you mean to imply that those who disagree with your accusation that this man lied are dishonest. If I remember right, Benjamin Rees disagreed with you, and didn't think you had evidence to show that this brother ententionally lied. I think another poster or two that you are not generally abusive to disagreed with you as well. That's not even counting me, Connie, and of course the brother himself, who disagreed with your assertion that you 'proved' that this brother lied. In fact, as I recall, you were the only person who expressed the idea that you thought their was 'proof' of a deliberate lie. The brother used unclear, maybe even poor, wording.”

Well let us just see what the facts are in this matter. I meant to imply exactly what I said. Any honest person should have seen from the clear and definite self-contradictions of Brother Kelley that he had lied. Brother Ben saw that he was not telling the truth and his only disagreement with me was his natural aversion to labeling someone a liar even when they are not telling the truth. These are his words in response to you concerning your feeble attempts to defend Brother Kelley in his lie. Here is what he had to say about the matter. He also stated that brother Kelley was not telling the truth and that it was a simple matter of which of his two self - contradictory statements was the truth and which was a lie. Read his words again they are given for all to see as follows and they proof that you have clearly misrepresented this entire matter:

“Link, I do not approve of Lee Saffold being so quick to label people liars, and I have remonstrated with him about this in the past. I also feel he wastes a lot of time belabouring this point that could be better spent addressing the issues rather than attacking the character of the one he disagrees with. However, in this case I think he has a point and that your defence of AKelley is merely "playing with words" and not really very helpful. (A disclaimer first. I haven't had time to go back and check whether or not AKelley actually said the words that Lee S. quotes, or what the context of the quotation is -- and I know from experience that sometimes things may SEEM to mean one thing, when jerked out of context, that was NOT the intended meaning, and was CLEARLY not the intended meaning if one will only examine the context more clearly. For now I am just assuming that Lee has quoted them correctly.) Lee quoted one sentence from AKelley in which he seems to be saying that he has personally experienced "speaking in tongues", whereas in a more recent posting he denies that he has ever done this himself. It is possible that when he says he has "personally experienced" speaking in tongues, he means something other than that he has done this himself (although it surely doesn't sound that way in the sentence quoted). If you wanted to defend him, you might have suggested other possible meanings for "personally experienced". But you don't. Instead you suggest that perhaps, when he wrote the later message, he forgot what he had said in the earlier message. That argument might work for some things. For example, if he was involved in some kind of negotiations and had made an offer at one point, or agreed to an offer from someone else, and then later makes a different offer, forgetting that he had made the earlier offer, etc. But are you suggesting that he would be given a gift from God to "speak in tongues", would exercise that gift, and then would forget whether or not he had done so? Has he spoken in tongues, or has he not? If he has not, but claims that he has, he is lying. If he has, but claims that he has not, he is lying. (Actually, I at least -- and I can't speak for Lee -- would say that if he thinks he has, he is mistaking some other kind of experience for the real Biblical gift, but that's another issue.) So the issue is less a matter of, "has he contradicted himself?", and more a matter of, "which time was he telling the truth (as he understood it), and which time was he lying?" -- Benjamin Rees (rees@hkstandard.com), July 24, 2000.

Then you say:

“All that you proved is how unreasonable and obnoxious you can be.”

It is clear from Ben’s post and to anyone willing to objectively read the entire thread where this discussion occurred that I proved that Brother Kelley was not telling the truth. And though you think that it is obnoxious to tell someone that they are lying when they deliberately lie to you it is not sinful or wrong to point to the fact that they have not been truthful. I did that in Brother Kelley’s case because he had definitely lied to us. I have no intentions whatsoever of withdrawing anything that I said concerning that matter. I proved it to be the truth that Brother Kelley had lied and that proof stands like the rock of Gibraltar against all attempts to make it appear otherwise. Especially your feeble attempts to do such.

Then you say:

“Btw, I didn't mean to imply that you were only obnoxious when hiding behind a PC. I just meant to suggest that as a possibility.”

Now how on earth could you suggest the “possibility” that I might be obnoxious “only” when hiding behind a PC without “implying” that I was doing so?

Then you say:

“It was not an accusation that you are definitely only obnoxious when hiding behind a PC. For all I know, you may be obnoxious ast times in person. Besides, giving out an address doesn't prove that you don't show more social graces in person than over a PC.”

Here you simply want to accuse me of something and appear as if you are not accusing me. How pathetic hypocrites are when they contradict themselves and do not even recognize it. I did not give out the address to prove anything about “social graces”. I gave it out to prove that I was not hiding behind the PC as you falsely charged and it was a very powerful refutation of your false assertion, now wasn’t it? I am not hidden to anyone now. Everyone in this forum knows my address and my phone number. But we do not see you giving out such information, now do we? Could it be that you just might be one of those that you claim “hides behind the PC?”.

Then you say:

“As for my tone toward you, I am acting in accordance with my principles. If you'll notice, I don't act this way toward other people on the forum, only toward you, because of your attitude and the way you slander people from time to time.”

I have no problem with your “tone” toward me. I simply am able to recognize the hypocrisy found in it. I do not object to a harsh tones toward those whom we believe are sinful, and that includes myself. In fact that is the very scriptural tone that should be taken. But you have been complaining that I should not take that same “tone” against those whom I am convinced are sinning and rebelling against God or resisting the truth of God. Yet, you are convinced because of my “tone” toward those persons, that I am sinning and in need of repentance. And because you are angry you take upon yourself the very “tone” that you condemn. That is hypocritical and anyone with the slightest ability to think or reason can see it.

And you claim that you do not have this “attitude” toward anyone else in the forum but me. Now, just think of that brethren. He believes that this attitude that he has is sinful and he avoids it with others but he is willing to sin when it comes to discussing matters with me. I do not have this problem. I believe that it is right to speak straight forward and rebuke those whom we are convinced are sinning or teaching that which is false. And I have no favorites. Such hypocrisy as Brother link demonstrates with this comment is pathetic.

Then you say:

"Also, you've taught plenty of false doctrine. The Bible teaches: 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. The Bible teaches 'for to one is given...' and you teach that these things aren't given to believers today. Your teaching contradict the teaching of scripture. 'Forbid not to speak with tongues' is an apostolic command. So is 'Desire to prophesy.' But what does E. Lee Saffold believe about these things? If you want to call me a false teacher because I believe the Bible, then that just makes you just plain wrong. If you want to call Bro. Kelley a false teacher because he believes in the verses you don't, then what does that make you? Youi need to repent and just believe the truth of the Bible that you quote from so much.”

WE have had this discussion. I have made it abundantly clear that these passages were written to people who had spiritual gifts given through the laying on of the apostle’s hands and that we do not have those gifts today. Anyone that wants to see our discussion of that matter can read the archives to see that discussion. And because you believe that we have such gifts today I am convinced that you are teaching false doctrine as well as on several other matters that you and I have discussed. But whether I am a false teacher or not I will leave to the judgement of those who have read our discussions. But for myself I am certain that you have not proven that I am teaching anything false in the least and should you prove such to me I would immediately refrain from teaching that which you had convinced me was false. But so far I am not convinced of it.

Then you say:

“In the Bible, we read: John 7:38-39 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) But what does E. Lee Saffold teach? I've read where he taught that believers nowadays don't have the Holy Spirit in them. Saffold's pnuemetology would have us just trying to use our own minds to understand and obey the Bible. But how can we obey without the Spirit. Paul wrotein Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. So how are we supposed to do good without the power of the Spirit. Our flesh doesn't have the good to empower it to do well. Romans 8 explains about the indwelling Spirit giving life to our mortal bodies. But Lee's pnuematology, unless he has recanted, just has Christians without the Holy Spirit inside of them. Wow, carnal minds and the Bible- sounds like the tools the Pharisees were using. And Lee has the gall to go around accusing others of being false teachers- though he has confessed that he himself has not the Spirit dwelling in him.”

WE have discussed this also and our regular readers know the truth about it. I do not believe that Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them today and I have been very honest about that position and I have made a strong case for it. I believe that anyone who wants to understand what I have said about it can read our previous discussion. I do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me and neither do you. And you have yet to find one single passage in it’s context that teaches that anyone after the death of the apostles and those upon whom they laid their hands had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. The Holy Spirit leads me in the same way that he leads all other Christians today. We are lead by the inspired word of God which we received from the Holy Spirit who dwelled in the inspired men of the New Testament. I have made it clear in our previous discussion that we have no inspired men living today. You certainly are not inspired and neither am I. If you want to discuss these issues further then start a new thread and we can talk about it again and again and again. But for this thread it is sufficient to say that you have not even remotely proven that such a teaching is false.

Then you say:

“ The false teachers in Jude were characterized as those who did not have the Spirit. v. 19.”

I have responded to this nonsense also but here I will simply say that these men were more like you, brother Link. They did not have the Holy Spirit though they claimed to have Him dwelling in them. And the proof in New Testament times as to whether a man had the Holy Spirit was the manifestation of miraculous divine powers which those false teachers, described by Jude, could not demonstrate. Thus they could not prove that God was inspiring their teaching. And the same is true for you, brother Link. You claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you but you cannot prove it by any demonstration of the powers and special gifts that attended this personal indwelling of the third member of the Godhead. Paul was able to distinguish himself as a true apostle of Christ by such demonstrations that showed that he had the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:4). You cannot do this, now can you? And even though the Bible describes those who had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them it is no evidence that you are one of them. You cannot prove that you have the Holy Spirit now can you? How would we know that you have the Holy Spirit? Just because the Bible tells us of those who had the Holy Spirit in New Testament times is no evidence that you have him today. Mormons claim to have the Holy Spirit and many cult leaders today claim to have the Holy Spirit and they also claim to be Christians so how would you prove that they do not have the Holy Spirit for we know that they do not, now don’t we? It takes more than mere argumentation to establish that you have the Holy Spirit. It takes demonstration and you cannot demonstrate it now can you?

Then you say:

Saffold wrote, >You have not proven that I have “slandered” anyone. < Let me give a Saffold-esque response, just for effect. You say that I have not proven that you have not slandered anyone. Well, the fact that you say that doesn't prove that it is so. You expect everyone to believe you just because you said it. Well, the fact that you said I haven't proved it doesn't make it so, now does it.... et.c etc. [saying the ame thing over and over again picking apart phrase after phrase, with a few unjustified inuendoes thrown in for 5 pages...] The evidence is in those earlier threads for all to see.”

Your argument is a good one because just because I say it does not make it so. And that is the truth. But the evidence that I offer for my statement is the clear absence of any evidence from you that proves that I have slandered anyone. And without such evidence no one can justly conclude that you have proven your charge of slander. And as you say, and I have demonstrated by quoting Brother Ben from the "Do You Allow Emotions in the worship thread" that the evidence is there for all to see and I highly recommend that those who are interested in this matter go to that thread and read it in it's entirety. When you do you will find that Brother link's statements in this thread are nothing short of deliberate misrepresentations of the truth.

Then you say:

“If you treat your wife and kids like you do people on this forum, you can do a lot of damage to them.”

If my wife or kids tell lies like false teachers in this forum they are already “damaged” and strong correction will save them.

Then you say:

“If you have a kid, and he comes to you and says 'Daddy, I got an A on my math test today, do you give him the old routine you use on here, 'Well, you say you got an A in math, but just because you say you did, doesn't make it so, now does it. you expect me to believe you got an A just because you said so...'? I hope you aren't like that to your kids in real life. I do pray for you.”

Well, now it is obvious that any child can claim that he got an “A” and some of them do that until the report card comes in and the father finally learns the TRUTH that his son had been getting “D” instead. What would you do for your Child then, brother Link? Would you teach him the meaning and importance of truth? I would and he would not enjoy the lesson nor would he forget it any time soon. But I would not wait until he failed to find out that he had been making “D” instead of “A”. I would make him show me the “A” that he made today every time he said he made one and I would praise him highly if he showed me the “A”. But he would get no reward for mere claims of performance. He would be lavishly and richly rewarded for PROVEN PEFORMANCE. And he would be better for it. But how I raise my kids is my business and I have handled that matter in complete harmony with the teaching of God’s word. So, mind your own business and raise you own kids if you have them. As for “me and my house” we will serve the Lord in truth and we will resist lies and false doctrine whatever the source.

Then you say:

“You may try to justify yourself, and claim you are acting like Jesus did to false teachers.”

I do not justify myself by “claiming to act like Jesus”. I am justified, as are all faithful Christians, by “walking in His steps” and acting just like Him. I have done so in this forum and will continue to do it. You on the other hand are acting like the hypocrites who crucified the Lord. You do this by pretending that we are to be soft and gentle with all sinners and those who resist the truth and then you demonstrate that even you think that it is right to do just the opposite of what you believe. It is ok for brother Link to speak plainly to sinners and those whom he believes are teaching false doctrine and I agree that it is absolutely right for him to do so. But, according to him, it is not right for E. Lee Saffold to do it because he disagrees with Brother Link. Such pathetic hypocrisy!

Then you ask a stupid question:

“How do you act to yourself when you teach yoru false doctrines Lee?”

I do not teach false doctrine Brother Link and if anyone could give sufficient evidence that anything that I have taught or that I believe is false I would immediately reject my own teaching and turn from it. And I would appreciate the correction however harshly it was presented for such a one that would correct me would be saving my soul from eternal punishment. And should anyone ever show that anything that I have taught is false I will turn from it. But thus far no one has succeeded in convincing me that I have ever taught anything that is false in this forum. Now, everyone can see just how ignorant that question was. In order to tell you “how I act as a false teacher” I would first have to be convinced that I have ever been a false teacher. And you have never convinced me that I am a false teacher, now have you?

“ I don't see you accusing yourself?”

I can assure you that if you or anyone else gave me sufficient evidence that I had taught anything false that I would be the first to “accuse myself of it” and correct it. All you need to do such is evidence from God’s word that is genuinely contrary to anything that I believe and teach. I would most certainly accuse and correct myself. In fact, I often examine what I believe and teach in the light of God’s word so that I can make corrections when I am in error so that I can walk in the truth.

Then you say:

“ Vickie just popped in here and made a very meek comment, and you gave here the old 'just because you say it is doesn't mean it is so' routine about whether or not her opinion was humble.”

Her comment was not as “meek” as both you and she would like for us to believe. This false humility displayed by those who pretend that they are more like Jesus than those of us who condemn sin and fight against false doctrine and contend for the faith as we are commanded to do (Jude 3) are hypocritical. The idea that we are to always speak sweet words and be soft and gentle in dealing with those who oppose the truth is nothing more than a sham. This pretense is sheer hypocrisy. I was not convinced that her self proclaimed “humility” was sincere and I said so. I will do it again when I see people proclaiming themselves to be “humble”. The very idea of such self - proclamations of humility is foreign to true and genuine humility which is evident of itself and needs no proclamation for it to be noticed.

Then you say:

“You've got an attitude problem. Don't try to blame your attitude problem on Jesus. Repent and take it to the cross.”

First, you have no proof that I have an “attitude problem” and you cannot show that I have blamed anything on Jesus Christ our Lord. I am following him and I have the same attitude toward liars that he had. (John 8:44). That is not “blaming him” that is following him! I have not done anything wrong and therefore have nothing to “blame” upon anyone and if I had Jesus would not be the one I would blame. I have not even mentioned the word “blame” in connection with this matter. You have a problem with my scriptural correct attitude and that does not constitute an “attitude problem” for me in the least.

I have nothing to repent of in this regard and I know what to do when I sin and need to repent. You can rest assured that I take my sins to the Christ and ask for forgiveness when I need to do so. This occasion is not one of them. I was right in what I said in this thread and would say it again. And I am confident to face our Lord in the judgement concerning these matters.

Then you say:

“And don't expect me to be soft on your sin or your attitude.”

Oh, Brother Link, I do not expect anyone to be soft on sin. That is what you preach. I do not expect you to be soft on anyone’s attitude that you perceive to be out of harmony with the correct attitude described in the word of God. It is you that preaches that should be gentile with those who we believe to be in error and have wrong attitudes. I agree with you. If you see someone who is displaying an attitude out of harmony with God’s word you should be strong and harsh and make it abundantly clear that they are in sin and call upon them to repent. And this very attitude is the one that I have and the one that you will “NOT BE SOFT ON”! I find your self – contradiction just here quite humorous, don’t you?

But first, before you are harsh, as you should be, you must prove that they have sinned and that their attitude is wrong. You have done neither of these in my case. You have not convinced me of sin and you have only demonstrated that I have the same attitude that you possess and condemn at the same time. At least, while I have that same harsh attitude that you demonstrate I do not simultaneously condemn it. I am convinced that it is scriptural and right. On the other hand you possess the same attitude that I have but you are convinced that it is sinful and wrong. Now just where does that put you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Wrong quote from Benjamin, Lee. Check the quotes from other threads later on- after Kelley had started posting again and had given his explanation. Don't you accuse me of something based on the fact that you picked the wrong quote. Check later on. if you are going to accuse someone, you should at least have the dignity to dig up all the quotes from Benjamin, list them all, and then, if I remember wrong, point that out.

You selectively quoted. You didn't show the positivbe response everyone but you gave after Kelley had started posting again and explained what he meant by what he had said.

The thing that suprises me about this is that you would actually stick to your guns and insist you knew akelley's heart in this matter. If he said that when he said he 'experienced tongues within himse'f he was referring to a subjective experience of what happpened when he heard tongues spoken, that is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining that odd statement. If someone speaks in tongues then it is unlikely that they would say I 'Experienced tongues within myself.' Just an odd phrase. But, instead of arguing doctrine with akelly, you looked for an excuse to attack his character. Attack the man's credibility, and you can engage in ad homenem attacks, instead of valuable debate.

It takes an incredibly arrogant person or unreasonable person to argue as you have. Sometimes unbelievers are that proud and unreasonable. I would hope someone who claims the name of Christ would have the humility to admit that he might not understand everything with his natural mind, and be willing to admit that he might be wrong. I wondered if you thought you might be wrong, and were just sticking to your guns out of pride. I thought you might just be so proud that you can convince yoruself that you are not wrong over such an issue. Frankly, to be so convinced of such a thing may not speak to well of your mental well-being. Maybe you were abused as a kid or something, and you were used to having people make harsh judgements about you, or something. It's hard for me to understand you. But no matter what your background, you don't have any excuse for such sinful behavior, especially not if you are going to name the name of Christ.

On this flimsy evidence, you started a one-man character assassination campaign of slander against a preacher of the Gospel. You didn't even get a good clarification from him. You called him a liar repeatedly. You definitely ought to be ashamed of yourself.

But hey, as long as you win your arguments. As long as you get to experience the satisfaction of writing your own pompous diatribes, it must feel like it's all worth it. Which is more important? Fearing the Lord? Treating people fairly? Being humble and listening to reason? Or getting the satisfaction of writing your character assassination diastribes. You have demonstrated a severe lack of Christian character on these forums. What church do you go to, anyway? Do they know you are like this?

And as much as you write about Christianity and the Bible, you sure have got a lot of nerve to call anybody a hypocrite.

And I know that one of your tactics, instead of examining your own heart when someone corrects you, is to be defensive and to attack the other person. You know, that's a really effective strategy to keep from repenting over sin in your life. You ought to drop that 'I am always right' facade' and open up your heart to the idea of being corrected. You ought to pray for a little wisdom so that you can learn to love rebuke.

Why is your heart so hard, Lee? Why don't you admit your sin? Was your heart so hard when you went under the water? How did you ever admit your past sin and ask for forgiveness? You should have more grace in you know, and more of a humble spirit in you that allows you to admit when you are wrong.

>>WE have had this discussion. I have made it abundantly clear that these passages were written to people who had spiritual gifts given through the laying on of the apostle’s hands and that we do not have those gifts today. <<

You made it abundantly clear that YOU THINK that the apostles had laid hands on the people in I Cor. 12. But the Bible doesn't teach it.

Who should I believe? You or the Bible? Should I ADD YOUR OPINION TO THE WORD OF GOD? is that what you want me to do Lee? I Cor. 12 doesn't say a thing about these Corinthians having had hands laid on them. Probably many had become Christians since Paul had left, because 'Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.' But yet, paul wrote that they came behind in no spiritual gift. he didn't say that half of them were without spiritual gifts because they got baptized after paul left, when Apollos was ministering. In fact, chapter 14 tells the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may intererpret. It doesn't say

>>And because you believe that we have such gifts today I am convinced that you are teaching false doctrine as well as on several other matters that you and I have discussed. <<

>>But whether I am a false teacher or not I will leave to the judgement of those who have read our discussions. <<

>>I do not believe that Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them today and I have been very honest about that position and I have made a strong case for it. <<

>>. I do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me and neither do you. <<

If you don't have the Spirit in you, do you believe in Jesus?

>>John 7:38-39 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)<<

I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me. If you do not, then you should take the matter to God. It is clear that a lot of your actions and attitudes are not from the Holy Spirit.

Lee, except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. The reason Paul was such an effective minister of the Gospel was because the grace that was with him outlabored the other apostles. In himself, there dwelt no good thing. He himself was trapped in a condition of continually falling to sin. In Romans 8, we read how the Spirit set him free from the Law of sin and death, and how that the Spirit gives life to the mortal body.

How do you expect to understand the word of God with a carnal mind? How do you expect anything good to come from your flesh. You need the Spirit of God in you. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Don't lean on your own undertanding. You need to be empowered by the Spirit to do the will of God.

Teh condition of the one under the law is, the good that I would not, I do, and the evil that I would not, that do I. But for the one under grace, the power of God worketh in you, to will and to do that which is good. if you take out that power of the indwelling Spirit from the equation, then Christians would be unable to live up to what God expects from us.

Your belief about this is unscriptural. It invents a new kind of Christianity. It invents a kind of Christianity that doesn't function like the Christianity in the Bible. Bible verses, in your system, don't apply to Christians because, in your system, God functionins differently with Christians from the way he functions in the Bible.

Acts 2:39- the promise for the Christians 'affar off.' Does that apply for today? If you say 'no,' why say that Acts 2:38 applies for today? What do you want to do: just pick and choose the verses that fit with your view and reject the ones that disregard it?

[concernig the teachers in Jude} >>>They did not have the Holy Spirit though they claimed to have Him dwelling in them. <<<

Back up your arguments with scripture. Don't just pull them out of the air. Show wher the false teachers in jdue claimed to be filled with the Spirit, from scripture.

>>You claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you but you cannot prove it by any demonstration of the powers and special gifts that attended this personal indwelling of the third member of the Godhead. Paul was able to distinguish himself as a true apostle of Christ by such demonstrations that showed that he had the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:4). You cannot do this, now can you?<<<

Your logic fails here. I don't even claim to be an apostle. If you would actually read your Bible and study it, you might see that not every believer who had the Spirit had the more 'spectacular' gifts. The Bible doesn't teach either, that the gifts of the Spirit were like Superman's powers under man's control. Even Paul left someone sick at Miletus once. Hebrews 2 says that signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost were given according to God's will. Acts 4 demonstrates that even the apostles who had done miracles prayed for God to do signs and wonders for Jesus' sake. If these things were just under the control of their own will, why would they pray like this? I've showed these things to you before. Why can't you learn from the Bible, Lee? Why do you continue to judge by your own standard, and not according to the word of God?

And nowhere does the Bible teach that the gifts of the Spirit are to be used to give a side show for scoffing slanderers who demand proof.

Let me quote you on something, >>>Your argument is a good one because just because I say it does not make it so. And that is the truth. <<<

Actually, the argument I made was just one of those 'wasted space' arguments that you always make. 'Just because you say something doesn't make is so...' I did that to imitate your style. It may be a logically true arguement, but so is 'Blue is blue.' I could fill up a page full of logically true arguments like that, and it wouldn't do any good. But in terms of having value the old 'just because you say X doesn't make is so' that you use all the time is just a big waste of space that is generally obnoxious and a needlessly insinuates that the other person may be lying. So it is not a 'good argument' in terms of usefullness. It is just a bunch of crap you use to attack people and fill up space. yes, I used that argument for effect. You fill up pages with needless, useless stuff like that.

Here is another example of a false accusation on your part. Maybe if you feared God more, you'd be more careful about falsely accusing men.

>>You on the other hand are acting like the hypocrites who crucified the Lord. You do this by pretending that we are to be soft and gentle with all sinners and those who resist the truth and then you demonstrate that even you think that it is right to do just the opposite of what you believe. <<

Show me where I said that we must _always_ be soft and gentle with those who sin? Show me where I said this is _always_ my principle. Jesus was not ALWAYS harsh with those who were sinful, but He was sometimes.

Who was He harsh with. The proud Pharisees who were unkind to others. These men devoured widows homes. They taught people the wrong things. They put heavy burdens on people but didn't carry the burdens themselves. You are proud Lee. You talk about the Bible, quote verses, and write a lot about it. But you show a lack of morality in your character in that you accuse people without just cause. You are also needlessly argumentative, even when the debate is not heated. At times, you twist people's arguments. If someone disagrees with them, you badger them.

So I believe it is appropriate to be firm with someone who acts like you.

Did Jesus scream at the woman caught in adultery, or the humble sinner's who felt so unworthy to host Him? that sure doesn't show up in the Bible. Even though Jesus was really firm with the religious leaders, when one of them came to him with a sincere desire to learn the truth- Nicodemus- we don't see Jesus being harsh with the man. Jesus wasn't a man always scowling at everybody.

We certainly don't see Jesus filling up pages of the Gospels with useless logically-true, but needlessly beligerant sayings like 'Just because you say X, doesn't make it so. HA.' over and over again. His teaching were much more weighty than that. I had written,

>>>It was not an accusation that you are definitely only obnoxious when hiding behind a PC. For all I know, you may be obnoxious ast times in person. Besides, giving out an address doesn't prove that you don't show more social graces in person than over a PC.<<

>Here you simply want to accuse me of something and appear as if you are not accusing me. How pathetic hypocrites are when they contradict themselves and do not even recognize it.<

Get a clue Lee. My statement may have been ironic. It sure wasn't hypocritical. I know that I was justly accusing you of being obnoxious. That is obvious to all. You were the one that started wsaying my 'hiding behind a PC' suggestion was an accusation. What' i meant by it is that some people are a lot more brave to be obnoxious on the 'net than they are in a face to face situation. Some people have a sligtly different 'net personality. I didn't mean that you were afraid to give your address.

And just because you give yoru address doesn't mean I am obligated to give mine. I might have posted something about ministry on here that could conceivably open me up for unnecessary persecution in this country, so it might be unwise to give out my address like this on a forum anyone in the world could access. It's an honor to be persecuted for Christ, but there is no need to be persecuted for a lack of wisdom. If posters on here want my home address in Indonesia, I may give it out through email at my own discretion.

>> I am not hidden to anyone now. Everyone in this forum knows my address and my phone number. But we do not see you giving out such information, now do we? Could it be that you just might be one of those that you claim “hides behind the PC?”. <<

My email is posted on the forum. The fact that you post your address doesn't mean that I have to post mine. It doesnt' matter if you taunt me childishly.

My hiding behind the PC comment was in referenceto how your'net personality can get obnoxious at times. I didn't mean anything about you not wanting people to come see you.

Just repent, Lee, and start acting like a Christian. Acknowledge your slander, and be a good boy. It's not that hard. God's grace is there waiting for you.

You say how you raise your kid's is your business. that'sa very Ametrican repsonse. is it Biblical? Chrsitians are to goad one another on in the faith. One preacher who was accused tof trying to pick up a hooker told his congregation that the situation was none of their business. Was it really none of their business?

If your kid claims to have an A, it's nomral to ask to see the report card. But if your kid claims to have gotten an A at school, on some test you can't see, and your kid has a history of being relatively honest for a kid, then there is no reason to give the kid the third degree saying 'Just because you say you got an A doesn't make it so.' You often tear people's words apart with needless drivel like that, insituating they may not be honest, instead of leading with the issues. It'sone reason your messages are so long, And one of the reasons I usually just click down when I come to one of your messages. that and your tendency to accus e people and insinuate bad things about them in other ways.

Let me ask you, Lee. You say that the Holy Spirit is not in you. Is Christ in you?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Danny,

From what I understand 'Christian Church' and 'Church of Christ' are supposedly used in a 'literal sense' to refer to the actual entity. I am a part of the Christian Church. I am a par to fthe Church of Christ. I am a part of no denomination with either title, however.

I am very much interested in truth. I also share some things I know on the forum. If you want to meet in a church building that's fine. I meet in both church buildings and private homes with other believers. I don't consider meeting in homes something to divide over. I do think it is a wise use of funds. It is also one of those areas where we have apostolic example but no commandment. Meeting on the first day of the week is another, but with less actual scriptural evidence to back it up in terms of volumes of verses. I'm more interested in New Testament Christianity than in homes. Some RM people are interested in having New Testament style meetings, etc. in homes or otherwise. I know a missionary here like that, and I've run across others. meeting according to the New Testament is certainly a topic related to the Christian church, in a literal sense.

As for Connie's comments- I can't speak for Connie or what she labels unloving. She's not me.

Lee hasn't told me anything about his family background. If I said anyting that was innappropriate, I apologize. Sorry Lee if I said anyhing innappropriate about your background.

Danny, if you've read the threads I've talked about, and just kept silent, you should be ashamed. I don't know if you've tried to correct Lee through email or in person or by phone or not. But if you just see him accusing people like he has based ont he evidence he has, you should confront him over his behavior. Instead of correcting him, you come to his defense. You should love Lee enough to correct him when he is wrong? don't you love the Lord enough to be obedient to His word about such matters? Have you done that through email? One of the reasons for rampant sin is that Christians so seldom obey what the Bible says about church discipline. I think Lee's beligerent style is wrong, but what I've been hammering on here is a case of slander. If you are Lee's friend, you should be correcting him.

If you've got a specific sin to point out that you say I've committed, go ahead. I know I'm getting really pointed with Lee on this issue. Lee is one of those people that I believe needs to be treated like a Pharisee. I don't believe that every person in sin should be treated like that. I know my messages in this thread are not nice, soft, cushy messages that are easy to read. They aren't intended to be.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

>>I do not believe that Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them today and I have been very honest about that position and I have made a strong case for it. <<

>>. I do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me and neither do you. <<

If you don't have the Spirit in you, do you believe in Jesus?

>>John 7:38-39 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)<<

I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me. If you do not, then you should take the matter to God. It is clear that a lot of your actions and attitudes are not from the Holy Spirit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the whole problem right here. E. Lee does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within him.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

I hate to say this, because I know I'm going to get blasted, but I have to agree with Vicki, Connie and Link here. Connie said one little thing, obviously teasing, and its caused a sixty-seven page furor with Lee and certain others in the group which is, quite frankly, embarrassing. Are you this way in your own churches, bashing people over the head with Bible verses whenever they say anything in a humorous vein, heaping judgmental railings on their heads? Are your churches dynamic and growing or are you driving everyone off? We are fulfilling the prophecy, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge."

A wise man once said to me, "pick your battles." There is a time for war, and a time for peace. Some things are not worth making a fuss over; if you attack every little thing everyone says, is it any wonder people think you cold, harsh and mean-spirited? Jesus didn't clear the temple every single day of his life! He went to parties and had fun, for cryin' out loud!

In the words of Link, everone, please, lighten up! Or in the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" (And no, I do not need a 4 page dissertation on why "Can't we all just get along" shouldn't be used with people who believe differently than you.) Jesus said we were to be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves. Not the other way around! Peace, brothers! We are called to peace; lets start acting like it!

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

My two cents (?) worth (actually only worth 1 cent now, as I had them in the market...):

John, you have said, "Connie said one little thing, obviously teasing, ..." I, for one, didn't see it as 'teasing'... I saw it as an obvious try at sowing discord and causing disruption. Anyone with a bit of history on this forum could plainly see that. She should be ashamed... but probably isn't (as it is a familiar pattern).... It is SO apparent that she enjoys seeing the CoC/ICC members here 'up in arms'... in fact, I'm pretty sure that is why she sticks around....

As to why it has been so quiet... I agree with what Danny wrote to Link. Much of the 'discussion attempts' as of late has been monopolized with either the 'house church' or 'no paid pastor' issue.... Not necessarily bad things to discuss, but ones that apparently are not going to be 'hot' items here.

Danny also says, "I have not posted on the forum and have not really checked in that often is because of the mindless dribble that has filled the boards. It is no longer the Christian Church board....which was designed primarily for people in the Christian Church to discuss issues among themselves. It was not the original purpose of the board to become the stop off for every person who believes it was given them by God....to convert those of us in the Restoration Movement. AMEN, BROTHER!! The format of a discussion forum leaves much to be desired... a great argument can be made in one thread and totally forgotten and lost in the next. No one (or so it seems) is ever convinced to change their 'position' about anything. The same points are brought up over and over again... without regard to the fact that they have already been refuted many times previously. I would much prefer a forum where we could all 'just get along' and discuss issues such as evangelizing and teaching the lost. This will happen when this forum becomes a CoC/ICC forum and not a general doctrinal discussion forum.... not that a general doctrinal forum is bad... it is just not what I personally am looking for in this one.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Robin, Neither paid minister or house church threads are getting much traffic. But anyone is free to start another thread, and aren't obligated to read threads that don't interest them. Maybe the reason few people post is because of the tone of the group these days, and the repetitive nature of things that you mentioned.

Btw, do you mean 'Christian Church' in a literal sense or in a 'denominational' sense?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

If it was an attempt to sow discord, then I stand corrected. But I for one didn't read it that way; it merely seemed she was trying to start a conversation during a period when it seemed things had gotten quiet. Which she quite succeeded in doing.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

I made a couple of posts, but the hateful Clinton bashing and political right wing nature of some of the posts detracted from the more thoughtful content. Also, death penalty debate made it clear that my understanding of Christianity is much different that of the majority of posters here.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Hello, John and all,

I did not intend to sow discord, but I was sort of mischievously commenting.

I had been 'lurking' for several days and it seemed as though no one was posting, which is too bad, if they think they are being intimdated.

I really do not see that I did anything to apologize for, because my intent was not to harm.

I do not need to sow discord here; there is enough to go around.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Brethren, Connie has said:

“This is the whole problem right here. E. Lee does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. “

Now this is one of the few things that Connie, Link and I have in common. None of us have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Therefore none of us are INSPIRED. And therefore we desperately need the guidance of the Holy Spirit which He has amply provided for us in the words of those men who actually had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and which they recorded in the pages of the New Testament for our guidance and instruction. (1 Tim. 3:16,17). And the problem here is not that we do not have the Holy Spirit “dwelling within us”. But rather that we resist and reject the inspired teachings of the Holy Spirit given by those within whom He dwelt for the very purpose of revealing and confirming to us His teaching which was for our guidance.

That there are numerous people who lay claim to having the Holy Spirit dwelling within them is without question. But were it not for the teaching of the word of God they would not even know that there “was a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:1-6). Among those that make such claims are Mormons, Seventh Day Adventist, and “Fake healers” such as Oral Roberts, deceivers and liars of most major cults. Now, if we cannot have any objective means of determining who has the Holy Spirit in them and who does not we cannot but accept the claims of all of them. For who are we to deny the claims of another without objective evidence that their claims are false? But, in New Testament times there was no such difficulty for there was always an outward manifestation, miraculous and supernatural in nature, that only those who had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them could demonstrate. Paul makes this abundantly clear in His confrontations with the false Judiasinmg teachers who claimed to be all that he, in fact and reality was. Notice these verses. “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” In order for our faith to rest in the power of God today we must go to the words of those who spoke with words that were accompanied with the confirming power of God. The only words that meet that criteria are found in the New Testament for no others have this power given to them. For this very reason we are to “continue in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers.” (Acts 2:42). For only the inspired word of God was attested in this way. Now notice another passage, “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.” (1 Thess. 1:5). We are told, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). And we are also commanded to “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Col. 3:16).

Thus, the word of God and the faith once delivered to the saints contained in it (Jude 3) is sufficient to our salvation whereas the personal gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us is not essential to any purpose today. It was essential for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God and guiding the church until that task was completed. (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 13:8-13). Thus we see that all that the Holy Spirit does in leading and guiding us today is through the words of those with whom he dwelt and commissioned to deliver those inspired words that are to be our guide. No man is led or guided by the Holy Spirit apart from those inspired words written by those very persons within whom he dwelt and who delivered that faith “once for all” to all of us. (Jude 3). And that faith is what Dwells within us today if we follow it. And that is the faith for which we are to contend.

Notice the following :

The word of God makes believers (John 20:30,31).

The word of God begets us (1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Peter 1:22,23)

The word of God enlightens us (PS. 19:8)

The word of God sanctifies us (John 17:17)

The word of God cleanses us ( John 15:3)

The word of God saves us (James 1:21; Acts 11:14; 1 Thess. 2:16)

The word of God quickens us (Ps. 119:50; 119:93) The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of our hearts (Heb. 4:12)

We are made believers, begotten, quickened, enlightened, sanctified, cleansed and saved by the word of God. And men within whom the Holy Spirit dwelt to guide them to record these words delivered His word to us, so that by them we might be led by the Holy Spirit. Anyone who pretends to be led by the Holy Spirit directly and apart from these inspired words is only deluding himself. And will eventually and surely be led away from the true guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is found only in the word of God wherein His guidance by the wisdom of God has been objectively provided and proven to have come from Him.

Now, those who claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them today cannot PROVE as the apostles and inspired men of the New Testament could prove it. They have no POWER and cannot demonstrate having any power from the fact that the third member of the Godhead actually dwells within them. If they cannot prove objectively that they have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them then by what means or by what criteria shall we determine if they are telling the truth and that they are not merely self deluded? And how will you see the distinction between those who are self deluded and those who actually have the Spirit Dwelling within them? The distinction btween these two classes of people was clear and unmistakeabler in the New Testament. The one’s who had the Holy Spir t dwelling within them could demonstrate it in manifestations of power. Those who did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them could not. It was that simple and it is equally so today. The only ones that we can prove had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them were the inspired men and women of the New Testament who deliever the faith and the inspired word of God to all. There are none today who can objectively prove by demonstrations of the “spirit and power” (! Cor. 2:1-4; ! Thess. 1:5) that they in fact have the Spirit Dwelling within them. Least among these are those in this forum who make such pretentious claims for themselves.

Now certainly one who claims to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them does not demonstrate it by deliberately “sowing discord among brethren” as Connie has definitely done in her deliberate false charge in the instigation of this thread and in the numerous such actions from here in this forum.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“Connie said one little thing, obviously teasing, and its caused a sixty-seven page furor with Lee and certain others in the group which is, quite frankly, embarrassing. “

Now, you have not established by anything that Connie said that she was “obviously teasing”. She did not say enough for anyone to determine whether she was teasing or not. And this is often a tactic used by her and others so that people can get her point and then when they sufficiently refute it and rebuke her for it she can claim “innocence” and others can claim innocence for her. And if some one is “teasing” it is their responsibility to make it clear that they are teasing. And teasing should not be in the nature of implying something that is seriously offensive to others. All such “teasing is in violation of the condemnation of “foolish jesting” that is to be avoided by all who would obey the Lord. Listed among the things, which we are told to not “let it once be named among you” is foolish talking and jesting. “ But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you as becometh saints; neither foolish talking not jesting, which are not convenient: But rather giving of thanks.” (Eph. 5:4). Thus, even if she were only “talking foolishly” or “jesting” she would be in violation of the very commands of God to not let such things even be “once named among us”. And her example in this regard demonstrated why such “jesting”, if that is what she intended, which I doubt seriously, is harmful to those who believe in Christ.

Then you say:

“Jesus didn't clear the temple every single day of his life! He went to parties and had fun, for cryin' out loud! “

Jesus went about doing His father’s business and this occasionally called for the “clearing of the temple” For His house would be called a house of prayer and it had become a “Den of thieves”. And those were his very words concerning those that he “clear out of the temple”. Harsh words indeed and a charge that most if not all of those so driven out would have denied. I can just see Brother John now saying to our Lord; “Can’t we all just get along”? “Can’t we just be peaceful toward this Den of thieves?” After all they do not intend to steal but rather they are simply conducting business. “They are not aware that their practices are actually stealing form others.” And besides Lord don’t you know that you are driving them away from the “church” or temple. “We may never be able to win them to your cause?” “Will they not think that we are “cold and harsh?” I have no way of knowing what the Lord would say to brother John in response to such comments from him but my strong suspicion is that he would use His whip and drive Brother John out with the other men who opposed Him.

But I am very curious about this idea of Christ “going to parties and having fun”. “For Cryin’ out loud” John where did you get such a notion? While we have accounts of Christ attending a wedding feast in Cana and eating with publicans and sinners. I do not think that one could paint the picture that you have painted of Christ as a “reveler” at parties, which is concerned in the scriptures among the works of the flesh. And would you please point to a single passage that shows without question that Jesus Christ “had fun” during his earthly ministry? It might be an assumption that because he was human he must have experienced some laughter or fun but we have no evidence from the word of God that such is the case, now do we?

Then you say:

“We are fulfilling the prophecy, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge."

Now this statement is nothing short of a pathetic misapplication of prophecy. This is a complete and deliberate abuse of God’s word. These words are found in two places in the Old Testament and we cannot tell from your quotation exactly which place you are referring to. These words are found in Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2. In the passage in Jeremiah the prophet is talking about what God will do to Israel just prior to the establishment of the New Covenant. And it is, therefore, a prophecy that applies to Israel and has no application to out conversation in this forum or to the attitudes of those who are in the habit of instigating and causing trouble among brethren. And The passage in Ezekiel interestingly enough says the following: “ What mean ye, that ye use this PROVERB concerning the land of Israel saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?” As I live, saith the Lord God, YE SHALL NOT HAVE OCCASION ANY MORE TO USE THIS PROVERB IN ISRAEL.” (Ezek. 18:1,2). But Brother John has found “occasion to use this PROVERB again in this forum and acts as if the prophecy of Jeremiah has not been fulfilled and that we are fulfilling it by having this “ridiculous argument” in this forum. Such pathetic proof- texting and the resultant abuse of Gods word are indeed a shame!

Then you say:

“In the words of Link, everone, please, lighten up! “ In the word’s of God, “Contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3) “Be sober, be vigilant because your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Peter 5:8). “ But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you as becometh saints; neither foolish talking not jesting, which are not convenient: But rather giving of thanks.” (Eph. 5:4).

Then your next example from men that you would like for us to follow instead of the word of God is the words of a convicted-ARMED ROBBER Rodney King as follows:

“Or in the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Now this man was a Robber and was guilt of crime and was on drugs and was running from the police and when caught he received a beating that many consider excessive us of force. But it is clear from his case that if he had not been a criminal in the first place he would have been able to easily “get along”. But he wanted to commit crime and then get by with it and expect that we should all just forget about the people that he had robbed who were his victims and he began to whine and say “can’t we all just get along”. And it happens in this forum that some want to instigate trouble and then when it becomes more than they bargained for they want to cry, “can’t we all just get along?” Hogwash! We should follow the words of God and not the words of convicted-armed robbers like Rodney King! And God’s word says, “what fellowship hath darkness with light?” Where there is darkness and light together there will always be conflict until one drives the other out! Darkness and evil will never “just get along” and truth and lies will never reside peacefully together. And Jesus was speaking to this very matter when he said, “I am not come to send peace but a sword”.

Brother John is crying for “peace, peace when there is no peace”. Sounds familiar doesn’t it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Lee, have you read Acts, or any other book in the NT or OT? Didn't Peter say that baptised believers would recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Holy Spirit given as a seal to believers? Doesn't the scripture speak of the "fruits of the Spirit"? Doen't the scriptures tell us to test the spirits? What is your facination with only being blessed with the words of God? If it is word only you can bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit with simple bible give aways! I'd suggest you read your bible again Lee.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

>>She did not say enough for anyone to determine whether she was teasing or not. <<<

If you don't know, you shouldn't jump to the worse conclusion and attack.

>>And if some one is “teasing” it is their responsibility to make it clear that they are teasing. And teasing should not be in the nature of implying something that is seriously offensive to others. <<

Normal people would consider the possibility that Connie was teasing before jumping all over her, and don't demand that someone prove that he or she is teasing.

You must have a seriously thin skin if you considered her comments to be offensive even if she wasn't teasing. You say stuff a lot more 'seriously offensive' all the time.

Lee, how would you like to be a cartoon character? Someone could take your style of getting offended about everything, and your argumentative style and make a cartoon character out of it. It sounds like something that would come on one of those obnoxious shows on MTV- a big complaining character that talks like you and picks apart other character's words. 'Just because you say X doesn't mean it's so. You come in here cliaming S,Y,Z and expect us to believe it just because you say it. It is almost hard to believe that you are 'for real' sometimes because they way you behave is so surreal. I really don't hope you act like this 'in real life.'

If you do treat other people like this in real life, you must either be one big fellow, know martial arts, pack a weapon, or just work alone. I used to work construction, and I can see where if you worked with construction workers, from time to time, you could pick fights acting like you do on here. A lot of people in the world, if treated like this, would show less tolerance than the people on this forum. If you have always treated other people like this in your normal day life, it's a wonder how you survived high school. The sad thing is, you consider this to be normal. (And no, you don't need to slander me- in typical Lee Saffold style- by saying I want you to get beat up, because that's not true.)

Have you ever wondered why people you single out to attack like this in your posts don't change their minds and agree with you? What is your purpose in arguing if you aren't trying to change someone's opinion? Do you enjoy it or something?

You qutoed a verse to attack John's use of the word 'jesting. I think one version uses 'coarse jesting,' but be that as it may, you should read the part of that verse about 'foolish talking' because you write a lot of bitter, ad hominem attacks that are just plain foolish. Yet you always try to justify yourself.

Lee, your actions and behavior is a disgrace. You call yourself a Christian, yet you act so carnal. You have the potential to be quite a stumbling block.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Richard:

You have asked:

“Lee, have you read Acts, or any other book in the NT or OT?”

Yes, Richard, I have read Acts and every other book of both the Old and New Testaments. And I have not found in any of them a single passage that teaches that all baptized believers of all times and all ages until the return of Christ would receive the Holy Spirit.

Then you asked:

“Didn't Peter say that baptised believers would recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit?”

No, Richard, Peter did not say that all baptized believers throughout the future of the world would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I presume that you are speaking of Acts 2:38,39 which says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and all that are afar of even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” (Acts 2:38,39). I presum such because it is a passage often referred to by those who believe that it thus teaches that all baptized believers would receive the Holy Spirit automatically upon being baptized.

This verse cannot be isolated form its context nor from the promise to which it refers. When it refers to this promise it refers to the promise mentioned earlier in this context and the prophecy of Joel which was the source of this promise. And it is limited entirely to all that was contained in that prophecy. The meaning of Acts 2:38,39 is a summary of the prophecy of Joel, which quoted by Peter to answer the question of his audience, which was, “what meant this?” (Acts 2:12). Notice the progression.

1.) Now when “this” was “noised abroad” (Acts 2:6) 2.) What meaneth “this” (Acts 2:12) 3.) Be “this known unto you” (Acts 2:14) 4.) This is “that which was spoke by the prophet Joel”. (Acts 2:16) 5.) He hath shed forth “this” which ye see and hear. (Acts 2:33) 6.) Now when they hear “this” (Acts 2:37)

Act chapter 2 can almost be outlined around the word “this”. All of this is concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Including, according to Joel's prophecy, the impartation of the Spirit to the “sons and daughters” etc mentioned in Joel’s prophecy which was done by the laying on of the apostles hands as Acts 8:14-24 and Acts 19:1-6 demonstrate. This gift of the Holy Spirit lasted as long as the prophecy of Joel, which encompasses the period between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem, predicted that it should last and no longer. And upon the death of the apostles and those upon whom they had imparted the spirit through the laying on of their hands this prophecy had completely been fulfilled.

Thus it would certainly be natural for Peter to promise, in explaining this outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was the occasion of His sermon to summarize it and explain it to those responding to not only his sermon but the outpouring promised by Joel. Therefore he explains that they too were among those who were included in Joel’s prophecy. And that if they repented and were baptized they would afterward in fact receive the Holy Spirit promised by Joel. His hearers most certainly would not have expected to receive some “non miraculous personal indwelling” of the Holy Spirit in the context in which this promise was made to them. They’d just witness the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, had seen the “cloven tongues like as fire” sitting upon them and had heard the “sound of the rushing of a mighty wind” but the wind was not blowing. They witness the Apostles speaking in languages they had never studied and they wanted to know what it meant. And Peter began his sermon by explaining what it meant. And he showed that it was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. Thus when they heard Peter promise that this gift of the Holy Spirit was for all included in the promise of Joel and that those who would repent and be baptized would “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The last thing that they would perceive him to be promising them, in this context, was an ordinary personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Thus Peter promised that they would after repenting and being baptized receive the Holy Spirit. And Acts the 8th chapter shows just how this was done. The Samaritans had received the word of God and had believed it and had been baptized (Acts 8:12) but they had not received the Holy Spirit. And the apostles Peter (who spoke the words of Acts 2:38,39) came to them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for “as yet he had fallen upon none of them ONLY THEY HAD BEEN BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord. Now this shows that the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit automatically upon being baptized. They had to wait for the apostles to lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And we are told that Simon saw that “through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given”. Now, I do not have time to go into a detailed study of this matter but I recommend that everyone think about it. We are not taught anywhere in the New Testament that anyone received the Holy Spirit automatically upon being baptized. I am convinced that the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38,39 was “given through the laying on of the apostles hands”. And that Peter in making this promise summarizes the words of the prophet Joel as he quoted in (Acts 2:17- 18). Just compare the wording in both passages:

Acts 2:39 Acts 2:17-18

To you and all that are afar off Jew and gentile all flesh Your children sons and daughters

As many as the lord our God shall call Servants and Handmaids

It is clear that this gift of the Holy Spirit was in harmony with the prophecy of Joel and the promise was given in accordance with it. The Holy Spirit would be given to the Jews and Gentiles and their children and even their servants and handmaids without distinction. All who would call upon the Lord whether they were servants or handmaids Jews or Gentiles old men or children would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit without any distinction being made in doing it. But this gift would only be given to those who had repented of their sins and had been immersed. And Acts the eight chapter gives an example of how that Peter and John went to make sure that this promise was kept to the Samaritans who had recently repented and were baptized but they had not received the Holy Spirit. And they laid their hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Thus I cannot find a single passage in the entire word of God that offers the Holy Spirit as a gift to all who repent and are baptized in all ages and for all time automatically upon their baptism. It just is not taught in the Bible and I have read all of the books of the Bible that you recommend and I have read them more than once and I will take your advice and read them yet again. In fact it is my intent for the rest of my life to read without ceasing all of these very scriptures that you recommend. But as of yet I have found nothing in them that teaches that all baptized believers in all ages of time were promised to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if you will compare Acts 2:38, with Mark 16:16-20 you will find another interesting parallel.

Mark 16:16-20

Believe Baptized Saved These signs shall follow believers

ACTS 2:38,39

Repent baptized remission of sins Gift of Holy Spirit

This is a subject that requires a great deal of study, Richard. And therefore does not lend itself to brief encounters such as we have in this forum. But I believe that if one really thinks about it he will see that no scripture teaches that all baptized believers receive the Holy Spirit automatically upon being baptized throughout all ages till the end of time. I do not ask that anyone accept it without study and thought. I only ask that you think it through and do not assume that it is wrong until you have given it sufficient study and have good scriptural reasons for rejecting it.

Then you ask:

“ Isn't the Holy Spirit given as a seal to believers?”

No it isn’t and it would take several more pages to give expositions of the context of the passages that speak of the “seal” of the spirit and you and I can discuss them if you would like. But you must have enough interest to engage in such a discussion with me. If you wish we can start a thread to discuss this very matter between you and myself. I say this because I assume that you are interested enough to engage in such a discussion.

“ Doesn't the scripture speak of the "fruits of the Spirit"?”

Yes it does and the Indwelling of the Spirit is not essential to having any of those “fruits”. The guidance of the Holy Spirit provided in His inspired word is sufficient to produce all of the fruits of the spirit in the hearts and actions of all faithful and obedient saints.

“ Doen't the scriptures tell us to test the spirits?”

Yes it does and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential to testing the spirits either. The inspired word of God is sufficient to test the spirit of any man. (Heb. 4:12).

Then you ask:

“What is your facination with only being blessed with the words of God?”

Why do you assume that I have such a fascination? I have no such fascination but I accept the will of God and it is His word that teaches that the Holy Spirit operates upon man in conversion and sanctification through the word of God (John 17:17). It was, if you will, a fascination of Christ our Lord. (John 17:17). There is nothing that Holy Spirit does for man today that he does not do through the agency of His word.

Then you say:

“ If it is word only you can bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit with simple bible give aways!”

Now this statement shows a pathetic lack of understanding of the issue. No one has even remotely implied that one can “bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit” by the word of God. I have made it quite plain from the teaching of God’s word that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the apostles and that it was given to others through the laying of the apostle’s hands. And that we do not receive this gift today at all. Therefore it is not being bestowed in any fashion today. And that is the position that I am affirming. It has never been “bestowed” automatically upon being baptized. And it was, in New Testament times, bestowed by the laying on of the apostle’s hands with the exception of the apostles themselves and the house of Cornelius, which I have explained in other threads numerous times. But if you would like to discuss it further with me we can do so. But you need to understand that no one, least of all me, has even intimated that the Holy Spirit can be bestowed by “handing out Bibles”. Statements such as these are nothing more than sheer nonsense. And it makes it appear that either you do not understand the issue in the least or you intended to deliberately misrepresent what I have said. I challenge you to find any place where I have said that the Holy Spirit can be bestowed by handing out Bibles! I have said that the Holy Spirit Guides us today through the word of God which we received from men within whom the Holy Spirit dwelt and through that Gift of the Holy Spirit were inspired to write the word of God. And that through their teaching we are led and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you intended to so deliberately misrepresent this issue you are welcome to do such if you like. But it will not wash with those who are honest and objective. It will work very well with those who are prejudiced against the truth in the first place but it will have little effect upon anyone else.

The Holy Spirit is not being “bestowed” today upon anyone and if you think that the Holy Spirit can be bestowed automatically upon being baptized you need to read your Bible again. For you will not find one single passage in the entire word of God that teaches such a thing. You will find some that have been twisted and severed from their context into the service of this idea but you will not find any in their context that teach such a doctrine.

Then you say:

“ I'd suggest you read your bible again Lee.”

I appreciate very much that wonderful suggestion and will take your good advice. In fact, I recommend that procedure to all of us. Don’t you agree that we all, including yourself, can benefit from reading our Bibles again? And not only again but again and again and again. I highly recommend daily Bible reading to us all, including you Richard. I am certain that you are not implying that you have read your Bible enough that you do not need to ever read it again, now are you?

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Acts 8 does show the Holy Spirit being given through the apostles hands, but it does not teach that this was the only way that hte Spirit was given. Paul wrote of the seal of the Spirit and the indwelling Spirit in terms which would indicate that he expected all Christians to have the Holy Spirit.

Even in the case of Acts 8, the Samaritans did get the Acts 2:39 promise. There seems to have been a delay. Perhaps the delay occurred partly because this was an unusual historical occurance. The Gospel was going out to the Samaritans for the first time since the ascension.

In Acts 10, we see that the Holy Spirit can be poured out withint the laying on of hands of the apostles. There is no scriptural authority for making Acts 8 the general rule, and Acts 10 the exception. These passages show us some of the different ways God can work, and we should receive what the Bible says. In fact, there are three occasions we can read about in the book of Acts itself where the Spirit was apparently given where it was unlikely that it was through the laying on of hands of the apostles. One is when Cornelius and the Italian band of soldiers received the Spirit in Acts 10. Another is Acts 2, where those in the upper room received the Spirit. And we also read that Ananias went to Paul so that, among other things, Paul might receive the Holy Spirit. Ananias laid hands on him. Paul was healed. we dont' know if there is any connection between Ananias, a 'disciple' laying hands on Paul, and him receiving the Spirit. There is actually a fourth case of peple being filled with the Spirit with no mention of the apostles laying hands on them. That is found in Acts 4, when saints, including the apostles, were praying to god to stretch forth His hand to do signs and wonders, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost. But this may not have been an initial infilling for anyone present. We don't know. We do know that the apostles present had already been filled with the Spirit, but it is not clear if all of the others had or not.

Whatever the case, trying to argue based on Acts 8, that people cannot have the Holy Spirit now because the apostles are dead and can't lay their hands on people now is not rightly dividing the word of truth. Acts 8 does show the Holy Spirit being given with the laying on of the apostles hands. But notice what happened when Simon tried to buy the power that whoever he laid his hands on might receive the Holy Ghost. Peter told him he had no part in that ministry? Why? Did he say 'because you are not an apostle'? No, the reason he gave was because Simon's heart was not right before God.

This idea of a Christianity without the presence of the Spirit is not soemthing the Bible teaches. This is a religion made up by some extreme varieties of later fundamentalists, not what the original apostles taught, and not what we see in the New Testament.

I once heard an anecdote, told as a true story, that someone asked a really little boy who went to church to name the members of the Trinity. The boy said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible. Scary answer, huh? This little story is a good illustration to point out that in some churches, the role of the Spirit is not taught on enough, though the role of the Bible is emphasized.

A had a friend who had a conversation with some people from a denomination which has historical ties to the RM, which is considered by some to be a cult. He said these people read 'the New Testament with an Old Testament mindset.'

Paul wrote that 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" neither can he know them, becuase they are spiritually discerned.' (I Cor. 2:14.)

In this same passage, Paul write, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (II Cor. 2:12.)

Revelation is very important in Christianity. Revelation is not just something in the word of God. It is also in the heart of every Christian who believes. When Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ, Jesus said that flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him, but the Father which is in heaven had revealed it unto him. We didn't read about Peter, before this, having been caught up into the third heaven and hearing that Jesus is the Christ. But God brought revelation to Peter's heart.

Paul prayed that the Ephesians would have the Spirit of revelation. God has revealed His will through the Scriptures, but He also reveals the truth to men's hearts. Without the work of God on our hearts, we are deaf to the things of God. Paul even wrote that no man could say 'Jesus is Lord' but by the Holy Ghost.

Understanding the Bible is not just an intellectual exercise done with the natural mind. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. But Christians receive the Spirit of God so that they might understand the things freely given to them of GOd.

What might a natural man whose heart is not enlightened by the Spirit do with the Bible? Bash people over the head with it? Use the scriptures to support their own agenda? Remember the Pharisees thought they knew the scriptures. They thought those scriptures they had read gave them a promise of eternal life. But Jesus told them in John 5 that they had never heard the Father's voice. How different these men were from Peter who had revelation from God!

Let us consider Acts 8 in the context of the rest of the book of Acts, and the entire New Testament as well.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

The King James Version (Authorized) 1 Corinthians 3 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:17 If any man defile F9 the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor ***revilers***, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The King James Version (Authorized) Romans 8 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

YE ARE NOT IN THE FLESH, BUT IN THE SPIRIT,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IF SO BE THAT THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELL IN YOU

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOW IF ANY MAN HAVE NOT THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, HE IS NONE OF HIS.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8:10 And if Christ be in you,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AND IF CHRIST BE IN YOU,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 8:11

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BY HIS SPIRIT THAT DWELLETH IN YOU.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FOR AS MANY AS ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, THEY ARE THE SONS OF GOD.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE SPIRIT ITSELF BEARETH WITNESS WITH OUR SPIRIT, THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD:

[NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS MAY SAY!!!]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The King James Version (Authorized) 1 Corinthians 2

2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BUT GOD HATH REVEALED THEM UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHICH THINGS ALSO WE SPEAK, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT *WHICH* THE *HOLY SPIRIT* TEACHETH;

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRTUALLY DISCERNED.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KNOW YE NOT THAT YE ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD, AND THAT THE *SPIRIT OF GOD* *DWELLETH IN YOU*?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHICH TEMPLE YE ARE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The King James Version (Authorized) 1 Corinthians 12 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NO MAN CAN SAY THAT JESUS IS LORD, BUT BY THE HOLY GHOST.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BUT THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SPIRIT IS GIVEN TO EVERY MAN TO PROFIT WITHAL.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Which of these words is not for us?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

“Acts 8 does show the Holy Spirit being given through the apostles hands, but it does not teach that this was the only way that hte Spirit was given.”

No one has said that it was the “only way it was given”. What we have said is that it was the only way other than the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurred only upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. What occurred on these occasions was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was administered by Christ himself and no one other than the apostles and the house of Cornelius received this baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is what makes these two occasions exceptional. And to this the scriptures testify. For in the first chapter of Acts Christ met with the disciples for forty days. And during that time he said to them, “And being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the father, which, said he, ye heard from me: For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.”. ( Acts 1:4,5). And on the day of Pentecost the Apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance”. (Acts 2:1-4). And we do not read of anyone else being baptized in the Holy Spirit until we come to Acts 10 where the apostle Peter witnesses the Holy Spirit fall upon the house of Cornelius in the same way that He fell upon the apostles at the beginning. Peter reports this event in the eleventh Chapter of Acts and refers to it as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. And as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them, EVEN AS ON US AT THE BEGINNING. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed immersed with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If God then gave unto them THE LIKE GIFT as he did unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus who was I that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, THEN to the gentiles ALSO hath God granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:13- 18). These two accounts are the only accounts we have of anyone being baptized in the Holy Spirit. The first was upon the apostles to fit them for their work and the other was the house of Cornelius which was to show to the Jewish apostles that God had “granted repentance unto life” to the gentiles as well as the Jews. And nothing short of this miraculous manifestation of God’s will in the matter would have ever convinced the Jews that the gospel was for the gentiles also. No one can find any other occasion of the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon anyone other than the apostles and the house of Cornelius. And this was extraordinary for even Peter did not expect this to happen at the house of Cornelius. For he said that “the Holy Spirit Fell on them as on us at the beginning” which implies that the Holy Spirit prior to that time had not fallen upon anyone in the same manner in which it fell upon the apostles at the beginning. And Acts 8 is an example of how it had been given prior to this event. And that was through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. It is very likely that Peter expected that this same procedure would ensue among the gentiles and he would have to decide whether he would confer the Holy Spirit on these gentiles and he may not have been sure of just what he would do about it. But God saved him the trouble and baptized the house of Cornelius in the Holy Spirit just like he did the apostles at the beginning. And thus we can understand why Peter said, “who was I that I could withstand God?”. What would that statement mean if he had not had possible misgivings about whether he would even seek to convert these gentiles. And if he did, would he lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit as he had surely done in Acts 8 upon the Samaritans and most likely did on the day of Pentecost? He therefore could not withstand God in this matter. SO, when I say that these two cases are exceptions it is clear that they are indeed just that for there is no other record of anyone ever being baptized in the Holy Spirit as were the apostles at the beginning and that fact alone makes it a notable exception. But there is no exception to the rule that the Holy Spirit was given to all others by the lying on of the apostle’s hands. Acts 8:14-24 and the case of Acts 19:1-6 are examples of the normal way the gift of the Holy Spirit was given. Among the Ephesians we read, “ And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?”. (Acts 19:1,2). Now think about this question asked by Paul, brethren. If a person automatically received the Holy Spirit upon believing why would Paul ask this question? If a person received the Holy Spirit automatically upon being baptized why would Paul ask such a question? If everyone was expected to receive the Holy Spirit as did the apostles and the house of Cornelius as Peter said that he had “fallen upon them as on us at the beginning when we first believed”. Why would not Paul EXPECT that since they were disciples, and therefore believers, that they most assuredly received the Holy Spirit? But if the normal case was that men believed and were immersed and then later they received the Holy Spirit, after an apostle laid his hands upon them. Then one would expect some delay such as we see in Acts 8 until the apostles could come to them for this very purpose And thus the question asked by Paul would be a reasonable one indeed. For he wanted to know if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed which was a way of asking if any apostle had laid hands upon them. For as seen from Acts 8 the apostles were sent to ensure that the Samaritans received the Holy and it therefore is without question that Paul wanted to ensure that these Ephesian disciples also received the gift of the Holy Spirit. But if such were automatic and definitely given always to everyone in all time to all who believed and were baptized then this question would not make any sense. For if that were the case Paul would have assumed correctly that since they were believers it is a forgone conclusion that they had received the Holy Spirit. In fact, if the disciples at Ephesus were to be in this forum, we would all assume that since they were believers they would naturally have the Holy Spirit. And if anyone were to ask them if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed we would be derided with accusations of having accused them of not being Christian. But notice that, though they were believers, they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit. And if you read the rest of the account you will find that something was wrong with their baptism and that even after being baptized in the name of Christ they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostle Paul laid his hands upon them. (Acts 19:2-6). SO those who believe that one receives the Holy Spirit immediately upon believing cannot explain this question that Paul asked them. He knew they were disciples but still wanted to know if they had received the Holy Spirit. For it is not a foregone conclusion that because one is a believer or a disciple that he would definitely have the Holy Spirit. And even if a person is baptized in the name of Christ we have two examples in the New Testament that shows that it is not a consequence of baptism that they would receive the Holy Spirit. For even in this example given in Acts 19:1-6 after these Ephesians were baptized it was not until Paul lay his hands upon them that they received the Holy Spirit. No one who had not been baptized in the Holy Spirit could receive the Holy Spirit in New Testament times until an apostle laid his hands upon them. And there is no record of anyone except the apostles and the house of Cornelius that were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit. Thus the only ones who had the Holy Spirit in New Testament other than those baptized in the Holy Spirit was those upon whom the apostles laid their hands.

Then Link tells us:

“Paul wrote of the seal of the Spirit and the indwelling Spirit in terms which would indicate that he expected all Christians to have the Holy Spirit.”

All of the scriptures referring to the “indwelling” and “seal” of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was written of those who had the Holy Spirit either through the lying on of the apostles hands. Or the apostles themselves and the house of Cornelius who were the only ones to receive this miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit directly from Christ who baptized them in the Holy Spirit. These passages have no reference to anyone receiving a non-miraculous, ordinary measure of the spirit automatically upon being baptized into Christ. Nor do they refer to any reception of the spirit by any means other than either the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which happened only to the apostles and the house of Cornelius, and those who received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. Thus it refers to the miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit which was for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God. (Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:15-20). And it ended when that purpose was complete (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:11-16) and when the apostles, those upon whom they laid their hands and those who were from the house of Cornelius died.

No, Paul did not write of the “seal of the Spirit” as if he “expected the indwelling to be for all Christians” of all time until the return of Christ. In fact no one can show one single passage from the word of God that even remotely implies that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” with its miraculous manifestations were to last till Christ returns. Now, there is no doubt that Paul certainly expected it to be for all Christians until “that which is perfect is come”. (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:11) and the prophecy of Joel (Joel 2:28) was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem and all those who had received the Holy Spirit such as the apostles, and the household of Cornelius, and those upon whom the apostles laid their hands died. No one but Christ and the apostles had the power to bestow the Holy Spirit. Christ bestowed it upon the apostles and the house of Cornelius and the apostles bestowed it upon everyone else through the lying on of their hands. Acts 2, 10, 11; Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). Now let us consider this matter of the “seal” of the Holy Spirit. Paul spoke of this in Ephesians 1:13. He said, “In whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” (Eph. 1:13). Not let us just see when the Ephesians received the Holy Spirit. “ And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said unto John’s baptism. Then Paul said, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. And when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. AND WHEN PAUL LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME UPON THEM AND THEY SPAKE WITH TONGUES AND PROPHESIED.” (Acts 19:1-6). Now this is the only record we have of anyone in Ephesus receiving the Holy Spirit. And in the book of Ephesians this same apostle Paul, who first imparted the Holy Spirit unto them, is writing to the Ephesians and reminding them of the fact that they were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit of Promise. Notice, is not the phrase in Eph. 1:13 “in whom also after that ye believed” parallel with the question asked by Paul in Acts 19:2, “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” In fact does not the phrase in Ephesians 1:13 answer the question Paul asked in Acts 19:2? Notice also, “ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13) Now compare this with, “And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6). The scriptures state that the Ephesians were baptized, but there is no mention of their receiving the Holy Spirit until Paul laid his hands upon them. (Acts 19:5,6). In view of the record that is given in Acts the 19th chapter of the Ephesians receiving the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the apostle Paul’s hands. And the outward manifestation that proved that they received the Holy Spirit seen in their speaking in tongues and prophesying, why would anyone draw the conclusion that their being sealed with the spirit happened at any other time or by any other means? And, for those of my brethren who continually quote this verse in Ephesians to support their claim that this seal of the Holy Spirit is received automatically upon being baptized and that it is a non- miraculous or not visible seal. And those who claim that it is nothing more than an “ordinary” indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I must ask, how can you reach such a conclusion when Paul is referencing the fact that the Ephesians had received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of his hands. And that was a clear reference to the miraculous, which was visible and evident from the fact that the Ephesians after Paul laid hands upon them received the Holy Spirit, and proof of it was that they visibly spoke in tongues and prophesied. And that this seal was the assurance that they were being inspired and led by the Holy Spirit and thus they could depend on the fact that the faith which they had came from God, the Holy Spirit. No one knowing the background and context of the this “seal of the Holy Spirit can justifiably call it a reference to the non- miraculous, ordinary indwelling assumed to have been received automatically upon being baptized. And no one can justifiably deny that this is a reference to the fact that the Ephesians had received the Holy Spirit trough the lying on of the Apostle Paul’s hands. WE do not have any apostles to lay hands upon us today for us to receive the Holy Spirit as the Ephesians did. And for us to come along and claim to have the same seal that they had is a tragic misinterpretation of the word of God and a complete ignoring of the context and the persons of whom Paul spoke in that letter. Yet this is what must be done when people seek to prove from this verse that we, who have never had an apostle of Christ lay hands upon us that we might receive the Holy Spirit. And that we, who have never been baptized in the Holy Spirit are the subjects of this verse written by Paul to the Ephesians who had in fact received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of his own hands. This verse, which is a clear reference to the miraculous reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands, has no application whatsoever to those who have “only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:14). It is not in the least bit referring to either of us or all Christians of all time to come.

Now, we are not like the Ephesians. But we have assurance that the faith which the apostles delivered to us came from those who were “sealed” by the Holy Spirit of promise. And therefore we can have confidence in the faith that we have obtained from the word of God that those who were sealed by the Holy Spirit delivered to us that it was the truth of God. The word “seal” refers to something visible. It was designed to confirm or certify something as genuine. Christ was sealed by the Holy Spirit to confirm him as the Son of God and to certify Him as the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. The apostles were sealed by the Spirit to confirm and to certify them as ambassadors of Christ. And the seal on the Ephesians confirmed and certified that they were God’s people, for they did not have the reveled and confirmed word of God to confirm it for them as we have today. For by it we can safely determine that we are acceptable to God because we are obedient to his revealed will. They, on the other hand, were receiving from the Holy Spirit the revealed will of God until God’s word was completely revealed. And during that time the fact that they had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them through the imposition of the apostle Paul’s hands was an outward visible confirmation that they were accepted of God. Today we have the word of God from those who were we stamped with the “seal of approval” so to speak of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. (Heb. 2:3,4) Thus we know that what we find in the word of God has the stamp of God’s approval. And if we know that we are following His word delivered by those who were so miraculously sealed we know that we too have God’s seal of approval upon our lives. But we are not being discussed in this verse. For Paul is talking about the Ephesians, who were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise through the imposition of his hands (Acts 19:1-6). This is what the Hebrew writer was referring to in Hebrews 2:3,4. How anyone can get from this passage in Ephesians the notion of some non-miraculous ordinary measure of the Holy Spirit received automatically upon believing or being baptized is beyond my comprehension. Such an invisible and subjective gift, which never existed so far as the word of God is concerned, would not prove or “seal” anything to anyone and would not give any confidence to us that they in fact had received the word of God from the Holy Spirit. But brethren keep referring to this verse, which is a reference to the miraculous, as if it proves a non-miraculous, ordinary indwelling of the Holy Spirit as some invisible “seal” or confirmation of what the word of God assures us, that they are God’s children. For they do not seem to be confident in the teaching of Christ that we are “all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26,27). We have God’s word for it and we do not need the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of us to confirm it. Then we are told by Link:

“Even in the case of Acts 8, the Samaritans did get the Acts 2:39 promise. There seems to have been a delay. Perhaps the delay occurred partly because this was an unusual historical occurrence. The Gospel was going out to the Samaritans for the first time since the ascension.”

Yes there was a delay, now wasn’t there? And for whatever the reason they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostles laid their hands upon them. In fact the very purpose of the apostle’s visit was that they might receive the Holy Spirit. They expected to impart the Holy Spirit upon the Samaritans through the lying on of their hands. Which implies very strongly that they had reason to believe that the lying on of their hands would bring about this result. And how could they have expected such a result if they had not previously had such a result. This indicates that they very likely had been imparting the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem just as they expected to do and did do in Samaria.

Then we are told:

“In Acts 10, we see that the Holy Spirit can be poured out withint the laying on of hands of the apostles. There is no scriptural authority for making Acts 8 the general rule, and Acts 10 the exception.”

The facts, which we have already related in some detail above concerning this matter establishes, quiet certainly that Acts 10 was an exceptional case. The House of Cornelius, being the first Gentile converts, was the only ones to have received the “like gift” as the apostles received in the beginning. And that his house was the only one’s other than the apostles to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit by Christ is another evidence of it exceptional nature. (Acts 11:15,16) And that it was an exception designed for the very distinct purpose of proving for Peter and the rest of the apostles that the gentiles “also had been granted repentance unto life”. And the fact that this was not ever done again for this purpose in any other place is evidence also of it’s exceptional nature. And the apostle Peter himself is the witness to this exception. (Read acts 11:13-18).

Then we are told:

“ These passages show us some of the different ways God can work, and we should receive what the Bible says.” These passages show no such thing. These passages show rather that God did things with a purpose and that he worked according to that purpose and in doing so he made exceptions for specific reasons stated by the Apostle Peter. And it is true that we should indeed accept Peter’s inspired word on the matter. (Acts 11:13-18).

Then we are told:

“ In fact, there are three occasions we can read about in the book of Acts itself where the Spirit was apparently given where it was unlikely that it was through the laying on of hands of the apostles.” We have stated plainly that those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit received the Holy Spirit without the lying on of the apostle’s hands. But that only the apostles and the house of Cornelius received such a baptism and no one else has ever received the baptism of the Holy Spirit since then. All others received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. And though Link has now tried several times to find an exception to this fact he has miserably failed to do so. In fact, in his feeble attempts at this impossible feat he has shown that he does not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in understanding the word of God as he falsely claims. We shall presently see that such is the case.

Then we are given the following examples:

“”One is when Cornelius and the Italian band of soldiers received the Spirit in Acts 10. Another is Acts 2, where those in the upper room received the Spirit.”

WE have explained this before above. But I want to point out here that it was the apostles only that received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as anyone who understands the fact that in English as well as Greek the pronoun refers to it nearest antecedent. And the eleven apostles and Matthais who was numbered with them were the nearest antecedent in Chapter 2 and verse one of Acts and refer back to the mention of them in Acts 1:26. Read it for yourself. “And they gave lots for them: And the lot fell upon Matthais; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, THEY (the eleven apostles and Matthais who was also an apostle) were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where THEY (the apostles) were sitting, and there appeared unto THEM (the apostles) tongues parting asunder like as of fire sitting upon each of THEM (the apostles). And THEY (the apostles) were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them (the apostles) utterance.” (Acts 1:26-2:4).

Then we are ignorantly told that Paul the apostle received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the hands of ANANIAS:

“And we also read that Ananias went to Paul so that, among other things, Paul might receive the Holy Spirit. Ananias laid hands on him. Paul was healed. we dont' know if there is any connection between Ananias, a 'disciple' laying hands on Paul, and him receiving the Spirit”

Yes we do know that the Laying on of the Hands of Ananias had absolutely nothing to do with Paul receiving the Holy Spirit. For we are told in no uncertain terms that the purpose of Ananias lying hands upon Paul was so that he might receive his sight. “Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the LORD SAID unto him in a vision, Ananias, and he said, behold I am here Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise and go to the street which is called straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: FOR BEHOLD HE HATH SEEN A MAN NAMED ANANIAS COMING IN AND LAYING HANDS UPON HIM, THAT HE MIGHT RECEIVE HIS SIGHT.” Now it is as plain as the nose on your face that Ananias was to lay hands upon Saul so that he “might receive his sight” not that he might ‘receive the Holy Spirit”. And were it not for the urgent desire to prop up a false doctrine, nothing in this verse would lead any thinking person to conclude that any apostle received the Holy Spirit from any MAN. Paul himself gives another account of this same event. In his account he says, “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, brother Saul RECEIVE THY SIGHT, and in that very hour I looked upon him.” (Acts 22: 12,13). Thus we have the inspired Luke and the inspired apostle Paul telling us that Ananias laid hands upon Saul that he might receive his sight and brother Link says it was that he might receive the Holy Spirit. He says this because he is desperate to find some one other than those baptized in the Holy Spirit who received the Holy Spirit by some means other than through the apostle’s hands. And in doing so he has placed himself in the absurd position of claiming that one of the apostles actually received the Holy Spirit from the lying on of a “disciple’s hands! This type of interpretation of God’s words to suit yourself and your own theories is pathetic indeed! He should be terribly ashamed of such ignorance. And remember that Paul said, “For I make known unto you, brethren as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I RECEIVE IT FROM MAN, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through the revelation of Jesus Christ…. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal His son in me, that I might preach among the gentiles: Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: But I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.” (Gal. 1:12-16).

Now, the apostle Paul received everything directly from Christ just as the other apostles and he was therefore not behind them in any way. And as Christ baptized the apostles in the Holy Spirit it is quite likely that he received the like gift from Christ as the other apostles did. Which would mean, that though we have no record of it Paul was most likely also baptized in the Holy Spirit as were the other apostles. It could have occurred in Arabia but one thing is for certain, he did not receive the Holy Spirit from the lying on of Ananias’ hands!

Now, Brother Link and I have discussed this matter once before and at that time he admitted that he was wrong about Paul receiving the Holy Spirit through the lying on of Ananias’ hands. Now he returns to make the same argument which he previously repudiated! And we see that even though he claims that the Holy Spirit is leading him to understand the word of God he forgot the lesson that he claimed to have learned previously concerning the fact that Paul did not receive the Holy Spirit through the lying on of Ananias’ hands. Now, for one who claims that the Holy Spirit helps him understand God’s words and that one who does not have the Holy Spirit cannot understand it he has shown that he obviously does not have the Holy Spirit helping him to understand God’s word, now hasn’t he? How would he make such egregious errors if the Holy Spirit were guiding him in his interpretation of the word of God?

Then Brother Link makes yet another “feeble attempt to find some one, anyone that other than the apostles and the house of Cornelius that received the Holy Spirit by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands. And he thus staggers helplessly toward Acts four mumbling that in it is an example of persons receiving the Holy Spirit without the laying on of the apostle’s hands as follows:

“ There is actually a fourth case of peple being filled with the Spirit with no mention of the apostles laying hands on them. That is found in Acts 4, when saints, including the apostles, were praying to god to stretch forth His hand to do signs and wonders, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost. But this may not have been an initial infilling for anyone present. We don't know. We do know that the apostles present had already been filled with the Spirit, but it is not clear if all of the others had or not.”

Now it is not uncommon for those who already had the gift of the Holy Spirit to be spoken of as being “filled with the spirit” and such language does not indicate in the least that they had just or initially at that time “received” the Holy Spirit. In fact it is quite obvious to the thinking person that it is possible for one who already possessed the Holy Spirit on certain occasions to be “filled with the Spirit”. And our friend points out that the apostles Peter and John were present on this occasion and they are among those who are spoken of as having been “filled with the Holy Spirit”. Yet we all know from Acts the 2nd chapter that they had already received the Holy Spirit previously. Thus we DO KNOW what our friend claims that we do not know. We do know that in the case of the apostles Peter and John who were present in the house on that occasion that this WAS DEFINATLY not their “initial infilling” as our friend calls it, now don’t we? And there is not the slightest reason to think that the brethren who attended this meeting, whose prayer indicates a clear understanding of the miraculous powers received through the Holy Spirit were initially “indwelt” as Link puts it at this time. And since the Apostles Peter and John were the ones who went to the Samaritans and imparted the Holy Spirit to hem through the lying on of their hands were the apostles present on this occasion. And if conjecture is going to be the foundation of our understanding of this then why could not one just as well conjecture that these people also had previously received the gift of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands. For is it not at least possible that since it is very likely that at least many if not most of them had been present on the day of Pentecost. And that these same apostles who are known from Acts eight to have had the power to impart the Holy Spirit through the imposition of their hands is it not in the least possible that they may have already done this for those gathered on the occasion of Acts 4? And if the kind of Conjecture that Link uses is to be allowed in this discussion is it also not likely that the apostles had laid hands upon the rest of those gathered before their prayer and their being “filled with the Spirit. One can at least have some just reason for such conjecture but we do not offer it here. We only mention it to show that it is not necessarily inferred from the fact that these people were filled with the Holy Spirit that they therefore of necessity must have received the Holy Spirit without the imposition of the apostle’s hands. There is not one thing in the entire context of this passage that even remotely justifies such a foolish assumption on anyone’s part. For we are not told, now are we, that this was their initial indwelling? And we know that it was definitely not the initial indwelling of the apostles now don’t we? And we have absolutely no reason, unless we are trying to force our theories upon the word of God, to even imagine that this was the initial indwelling of anyone present on that occasion in Acts the forth chapter, now do we? This just further demonstrates Links desperation in his feeble attempts to avoid the truth taught in God’s eternal word concerning this subject. And it is also further proof that the Holy Spirit is not helping him very much in his understanding of the word of God, now isn’t it?

Then he says:

“Whatever the case, trying to argue based on Acts 8, that people cannot have the Holy Spirit now because the apostles are dead and can't lay their hands on people now is not rightly dividing the word of truth. Acts 8 does show the Holy Spirit being given with the laying on of the apostles hands.”

Yes Acts eight does show that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle’s hands. And since it is true that no one received the Holy Spirit without the laying on of the Apostles hands except those who were baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the apostles and at the house of Cornelius. For this is clearly shown by Acts 8:14-24 and Acts 19:1-6 and all of the arguments detailed in our earlier comments in this post. For the apostles and the house of Cornelius is the only recorded evidence of anyone being baptized I the Holy Spirit by Christ. For the apostles, who certainly did not lay hands upon themselves. And the house of Cornelius was clearly designed for the purpose of demonstrating that God accepted the gentiles. (Acts 11:13-18). It therefore follows quite logically that this the argument from Acts 8 and Acts 19:1-6 is a good argument indeed and one that Link just cannot over come! And our friend just cannot, no matter how many scriptures he feebly attempts to pervert and twist to his purpose, show that this argument is not good. In fact, he has tried now on several occasions to answer this argument and has failed yet again to do so. If he were satisfied with his previous answer he would not seek to keep trying. Thus he feels very strongly the power of this argument and just cannot admit to himself that it is unanswerable.

Then we are told:

“But notice what happened when Simon tried to buy the power that whoever he laid his hands on might receive the Holy Ghost. Peter told him he had no part in that ministry? Why? Did he say 'because you are not an apostle'? No, the reason he gave was because Simon's heart was not right before God.”

Now with this statement Link implies that Simon might have been able to buy this power that on whom he laid his hands they would receive the Holy Spirit if only his heart was right with God! Ha! Such nonsense! The reason that his heart was not right with God was because he tried to by with money something that God had not given him any part or lot in. He had just received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the apostle’s hands and instead of being thankful his evil heart wanted to have this power to bestow the Holy Spirit as well! Can you imagine? And it never crossed his mind that if God had wanted him to have this power he would have given it to him. He was just like our Brother Link. He wants this “power also” but he cannot get it. Therefore he tries to deceive you and others and himself as well into believing that if your heart is right with God you could get this power that on whomever you lay your hands they would receive the Holy Spirit! Hogwash! Not only did Simon have no part nor lot in this matter neither does Link nor anyone other than the apostles of Christ. Brother Link and other Pentecostals are as guilty of seeking these things that God has not given us any lot or part in and their hearts are therefore for the same reason “NOT RIGHT WITH GOD”.

Then we are told:

“This idea of a Christianity without the presence of the Spirit is not soemthing the Bible teaches. This is a religion made up by some extreme varieties of later fundamentalists, not what the original apostles taught, and not what we see in the New Testament.” No, the idea of Christianity based upon the lie and deception that we all are endowed with the Holy Spirit is not taught in the New Testament. The idea that we are therefore as inspired and miraculously led and guided by the Holy Spirit as were those who had actually, in truth received the Holy Spirit is not taught in the word of God. And the notion that we are, apart from the word of God, receiving visions and revelations and miraculous confirmations of the truth as were those in the New Testament that received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the apostle’s hands is not taught in the scriptures. What we see in the New Testament is how the word of God was miraculously revealed and confirmed to us “with the Holy Spirit sent down form heaven” (Heb. 2:3,4). And we had better not neglect that salvation by being lead away from the truth by those who claim, but cannot prove by any demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2;1-4) that they have the Holy Spirit just as did those we read about in the New Testament.

No one has even remotely implied a “Christianity” without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For the word of God is just that. It is the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit dwelt in men of New Testament times to inspire them and through His inspired word he could guide all that would come to Christ thereafter. The Holy Spirit does still guide the church through the words given by those within whom he dwelt and inspired for that very purpose. We have no inspired men today. And link’s most recent post proves that he most certainly does not have the Holy Spirit “present” with him when he studies the word of God for he has so pathetically misunderstood it that the Holy Spirit could not possibly be guiding him in his interpretation of it.

Then he seeks to persuade us with a miserable illustration of an ignorant child as follows:

“I once heard an anecdote, told as a true story, that someone asked a really little boy who went to church to name the members of the Trinity. The boy said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible. Scary answer, huh? This little story is a good illustration to point out that in some churches, the role of the Spirit is not taught on enough, though the role of the Bible is emphasized.”

Now, just as this child was ignorant the argument made by Link in using this illustration shows that he is as ignorant of the issue as was this little child. We have not been arguing for the “father Son, and the Holy Bible as if the Bible has replaced the Holy Spirit as this pathetic illustration seeks to imply. WE have shown that the Holy Spirit dwelt within men in the New Testament for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God, which would be more than sufficient to guide all Christians throughout the ages to come. Thus we have the guidance of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit within his inspired word. Thus the Holy Spirit is still guiding us today through the words of those within whom he dwelt personally to reveal and confirm the truth for us. And it is nothing short of a complete lack of faith in the word of God to imply that the guidance received from the Holy Spirit through His inspired word is insufficient to bring us to salvation. In fact, if it were not for this inspired word we would not even know that there was a Holy Spirit. No, we are contending for the true guidance of the Holy Spirit through the objective and inspired word of God. Link is contending for a false imaginary subjective guidance that is not from the Holy Spirit but rather from the self delusions of those who imagine that their own subjective emotions and feelings are the guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit. By this type of guidance the Holy Spirit is not leading but rather one is led by the deceptions of his own heart.

Then he speaks of his friend, as if he is some kind of authority on the restoration movement as follows: “A had a friend who had a conversation with some people from a denomination which has historical ties to the RM, which is considered by some to be a cult. He said these people read 'the New Testament with an Old Testament mindset.'”

Notice that his friend simply stated this without attempting to give any evidence that would convince any thinking person that it was true. We do not read the New Testament with an Old Testament mindset. We read both the Old and New Testament with a Christian mindset. And thus we are following the guidance of the Holy Spirit that is provided therein and thus we are led by the very Spirit of God instead of the deluded vain imaginings of our own hearts that some ascribe to the guidance of the Holy Spirit today.

Then we again see Link claiming that man cannot understand God’s word without the direct leading of the Holy Spirit as follow: “Paul wrote that 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" neither can he know them, becuase they are spiritually discerned.' (I Cor. 2:14.)” It makes us all wonder just why Link has made so many egregious error in his understanding of God’s word since he claims to be a “spiritual man” being led by the Holy Spirit to understand God’s word. Is this the reason that he foolishly drew the false conclusion that Paul received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of Ananias’ hands. Especially after he previously had admitted that he was wrong in drawing this erroneous conclusion? And I have already dealt with this in the exposition written by Brother A. Campbell, which I provided in another thread. But I will quote it here for your further instruction. Link never did respond to this and cannot even now answer it. But I will give it again for you to read as follows:

1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Brother Alexander Campbell gave a far better explanation of these verses than I could even remotely hope to accomplish even if I had unlimited time and talent. Because he expresses my position concerning them so well and because of his superior educational credentials I have decided to simply quote his remarks in response to this particular verse. I will follow it with a few remarks of my own. “Let it, then, be distinctly noticed, from all these premises that these gifts had for their object, first, the revelation of the whole Christian doctrine; and secondly, the confirmation of it; and without them no man could either have known the truth or believed it. To this effect does the apostle reason, 1 Cor. ii. 9-16. He shews that none of the princes, legislators, or wise men of Judea, Greece, or Rome, ever could, by all their faculties, have discovered the hidden wisdom, “which God had determined, before the Mosaic dispensation began, should be spoken to the honor of the apostles, gifted by the Holy Spirit.” For so it was written, “eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and into the heart of man (before the apostles) those things have not entered, which God prepared for them who love him. But God has revealed them (those unseen, unheard and unknown things) to us (the apostles) by His Spirit-which things (before unknown, unheard, and unseen,) also we (apostles) speak (to you gentiles and Jews, that you may know them) not in words taught by human wisdom, (in Judea, Greece, or Rome) but in words taught by the Holy Spirit, explaining spiritual things with spiritual words.” “Now, an animal man, (whether a prince, a philosopher, a legislator, or a rhetorician, in Judea, Greece or Rome by means of all arts and sciences) receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, (by all of his faculties and attainments) because they are spiritually examines” (by the light which revelation and not reason affords). “But the spiritual man (the man possessed of a supernatural gift) examines, indeed, all things; yet he cannot be examined by any animal man (because such cannot judge of the principles suggested to him by the spirit;) for what man (who is merely animal) has known the mind of the Lord, (his deep designs respecting Jews and Gentiles, now made know to us apostles,) who will (or can) instruct him (the spiritual man.) But we (apostles) have the mind of Christ,” and are able to instruct your spiritual men with all their gifts. O! You Corinthians! How has this beautiful passage been perverted by system into a meaning the most remote from the mind of the Spirit! The translation above given is most consistent with the original, and indeed, is the translation of Dr. McKnight, who seems to have rendered all those passages that speak of spiritual gifts, in all of the epistles much more accurately and intelligibly than any other translator we have seen. The animal man, or what our translators call a natural man, spoken of by the apostle, is quite another sort of man than the Calvinistic or the Arminian natural man. The apostle’s natural man, or his animal man, was a man who judged of things by his animal senses or reason, without any revelation of the Spirit; but the natural man of modern systems, is a man the revelation of the spirit and is in a “state of nature” as it is called. The apostle’s natural man’s eye had never seen, his ear had never heard, his heart never conceived any of those things written in the New Testament - our natural man’s ear has heard, and it has entered into his mind to conceive, in some way or other, the things which were revealed to the Holy Spirit by the apostles. To argue from what is said of the one by the apostle, to the other, is a gross sophism, though a very common one; and by many such sophisms is the word of God wrested to the destruction of thousands.”

I believe that anyone reading Brother Campbell’s remarks can see that all of these passages, this one especially, are related to the time when revelation was being given directly. And that they are designed to show the distinction between those who taught the truth by INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit, and the one’s who claimed to be teachers but were not inspired by the spirit. There is a world of difference between the natural man using his natural reason to know things and the natural man who is inspired by the spirit of God and has the truth revealed directly to him. The former can never know anything that God has not revealed to him concerning what God will is. And the latter is the only one that could ever have know the truth simply because God revealed it to him. And others were given evidence through the miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit that God had revealed his mind or will to them. Thus the “man without the spirit is without question in this verse talking about the “uninspired” man who had not received any revelation from God. It is a monumental mistake to say that the natural man is the sinner who has a copy of the New Testament to read and cannot understand what he reads without the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. This is the doctrine of Calvin, not the apostles. For the New Testament is the expression of God’s will to man after it had been revealed to the apostles and he can, without any direct aid from the Holy Spirit, understand it. In fact it was given through the apostles and written in language so that the mind of God could be revealed to us. Without these revelations of the Holy Spirit that were confirmed as being from God by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven we would, as the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-6 not even know that there was a Holy Spirit. WE have the inspired word of God revealed for the very purpose of leading and guiding us to do the will of God. His word has been revealed and confirmed through those who had the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. And the Holy Spirit is guiding us today through those inspired, revealed, and confirmed words of God. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4).

But to say that this verse in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is talking about some “non-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit is as Brother Campbell has so aptly put it “a gross sophism” even if it is a “common one”.

Then Link gives us another Passage taken completely out from its context as follows:

“In this same passage, Paul write, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (II Cor. 2:12.)” Now just here we are told how the apostles receive the Holy Spirit in contrast with the spirit of the world that they might KNOW the things freely given us of God. This is a passage wherein Paul is claiming inspired revelations from God. And unless Link is claiming that we receive such inspiration today he should not abuse this passage to teach that we receive the Holy Spirit today so that we, who are not apostles of Christ, can understand the word of God. For it teaches no such thing. This passage harkens back to the promise of Jesus to the apostles that they would be guided into all the truth by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13;14:26). We have no such inspired men today.

Then Link seeks to convince you that you can receive revelations of God today as follows:

“Revelation is very important in Christianity. Revelation is not just something in the word of God. It is also in the heart of every Christian who believes. When Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ, Jesus said that flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him, but the Father who is in heaven had revealed it unto him. We didn't read about Peter, before this, having been caught up into the third heaven and hearing that Jesus is the Christ. But God brought revelation to Peter's heart.”

Now, here Link is claming inspiration and revelations from God apart from the word of God. And anyone reading the New Testament can see that we are not exactly told directly how Peter received this revelation from God. Though I have read many good explanations that might be true. We do not really know just how God revealed this to Peter. It is sufficient that we take our Lord's word on the matter that God did reveal it to him. Thus Link cannot justifiably claim that we receive revelations from God today in the same way that Peter did since he has no real proof or even any understanding of how God revealed things to Peter. Link is trying to set you up to believe that you can trust the subjective hunches of your own heart as being from God. And thus you will trust to your own understanding by concluding that such is not really your own subjective feelings and hunches about things but that those feeling are in reality revelations from God. If you accept his nonsense you will soon be led away from all that is true and right. In fact, this is the very way that “cult” leaders [persuade the unlearned and ignorant to follow their pernicious ways. The guidance of the Holy Spirit found ONLY in the word of God is our only save guide and our only rule of faith and practice in the body or Church of Christ. I am sure that no one will be deceived with this pathetic nonsense.

Then he again wants you to be like the Ephesians upon who the apostle Paul laid his hands and they actually received the Holy Spirit, which has not happened to you and you know it. He says: “Paul prayed that the Ephesians would have the Spirit of revelation. God has revealed His will through the Scriptures, but He also reveals the truth to men's hearts. Without the work of God on our hearts, we are deaf to the things of God. Paul even wrote that no man could say 'Jesus is Lord' but by the Holy Ghost.”

Now here Brother Link is telling you that God’s written and inspired word is not sufficient for you. Even though Paul told Timothy that it was (1 Tim. 3:16,17). He says that God also reveals things to men hearts and he means by this that God is doing such today after the faith has once for all been delivered. (Jude 3). But he does not show us from the word of God that we are to expect God to be revealing things to us. I suppose that he cannot find it in the word of God and is telling us something that has been revealed to him and that his above words are just as inspired as the word of God. He also does not want you to realize that it was natural for those who had the Holy Spirit through the lying on of Paul’s hands to expect revelations from God. Because that is the very reason that the Holy Spirit was given so that the word of God could be revealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit through them. This was a promise and an expectation of inspiration and confirmation of the word of God that, at that time, had not yet been completed. You do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you and neither does Brother Link. And if anything is being revealed to Him or you can rest assured, especially if those revelations conflict with the teaching of God’s word, that you are following a strong delusion of Satan and not any revelations of God through the Holy Spirit. “Understanding the Bible is not just an intellectual exercise done with the natural mind. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. But Christians receive the Spirit of God so that they might understand the things freely given to them of God.” WE have dealt with this above. But note just here that we can see from Links post to which we are responding that he is surely convinced that understanding the word of God is not an intellectual exercise. For he exercised very little intellect in the interpretation of the passages from the word of God that he sought to abuse into the support of his false doctrine.

Then he cries that people are being “bashed over the head with the Bible" as follows:

“What might a natural man whose heart is not enlightened by the Spirit do with the Bible? Bash people over the head with it? Use the scriptures to support their own agenda? Remember the Pharisees thought they knew the scriptures. They thought those scriptures they had read gave them a promise of eternal life. But Jesus told them in John 5 that they had never heard the Father's voice. How different these men were from Peter who had revelation from God!” Those who fail miserably to find their doctrines in the Bible and have been corrected by some faithful Christian who knows the word of God often hear this complaint. It is therefore not surprising in the least to see Link whine that we there are what he calls “natural men” out there that might use their God given intellect to “bash” him over the head with the Bible. When the truth is that God was perfectly able to communicate with Man in his own word and there is no need for direct guidance from the Holy Spirit for us to understand it. If the Holy Spirit is going to be within us and constantly telling us with hunches and visions what the Bible says then there obviously was no need for the Bible at all. For he could do that without having allowed the word of God to be written. All he would have to do to get us to do his will is to simply tell us. If he is in us why does he not just lead us and why bother with giving us the written word in the first place? You see, the very idea of a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, such as Link is talking about wars against the very idea of the written word of God. Now, there is no doubt that Peter had revelation from God but Brother Link does not have the same revelation and inspiration that God gave the apostle Peter. Brethren, it will not be long now before Link will be coming to us and claiming to be an apostle of Christ. Remember that I gave similar warnings about A Kelley and he has now been “slain in the Spirit”. Ha! Now, Peter we know had revelations from God for he was an inspired apostle of Christ who received the Holy Spirit for the very purpose of receiving the revealed word of God (John 16:13; John 14:26) and to be guided into all truth. The truth through which the apostles were to guide and which was to sanctify us. (John 17:17). But Link has not such revelations from God because he is not an inspired apostle and he does not have the Holy Spirit at all. And he does not want to be lead solely by the word of God. That is not enough for him. He wants more of the things, like Simon, who wanted powers that were not for him to have neither part nor lot in. But he will never have them for God has not promised such to him. Nor has God promised such to us. We have the word of God and it is sufficient for all our spiritual guidance.

Then he says:

“Let us consider Acts 8 in the context of the rest of the book of Acts, and the entire New Testament as well.”

Well, Brother Link we have done just that and we recommend that you do the same. For you have reached these erroneous conclusions by violating your own advice given in the final words of your miserable and pathetic attempt to pervert the word of God concerning this issue.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001