Brethren:

Because there appears to be a server problem connected with the thread entitled "BORING" and there were comments written there that were directed to me that call for some response I have thus decided to respond by continuing the discussion under the original title of the thread to which I am responding. I now commence that response in the following.

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, by Brother Link, 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?

I will continue my response in my next post.

Your Brother in Christ.

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Answers

Brethren:

I now continue my response as promise to the things mentioned in the beginning of this continuance of the discussion found in the original thread entitled "BORING".

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 Brother 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 would 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.)”

Brother Link also misapplied the following passage in his quotes 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."

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: 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 whom 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.

Then Brother Link wants us to believe, without any evidence to convince us of its truthfulness, his false assertion that understanding the Bible cannot be done with our minds.

“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. Not only should we consider the context and the rest of the Bible as well but we must use our MINDS to conduct such consideration. For a mindless consideration of the word of God, or anything else for that matter, will produce MINDLESS and errroneous conclusions.

Do not be deceived into putting your mind away when studing the word of God. For we are told, "Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

What happened to Nelta's 'GOOD GRIEF' post?

It would be appropriate here now.

And I second it. GOOD GRIEF!!!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 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 ARE NOT FOR US???

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

E. Lee S.

The thread got messed up. The sovereignty of God? I'm not shedding any tears. But since you wanted to resurrect the thread and write your own opinions for whoever to read, I'll respond.

I haven't read your whole message, but I wanted to respond to some of your points.

I wrote, “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.”

E. Lee Saffold wrote, 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. <<

This is your problem. You make doctrines where the scriptures are silent. The Bible clearly does not the that the laying on of the apostles hands was the only way that the Spirit was given other than the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the outpouring of the Spirit on Cornelius and those with him in Acts 10. The Bible plainly does not teach this.

In addition, Paul received the Holy Spirit. Ananias went to him partly so that he might receive the Holy Ghost. Since Paul wrote that Peter and John 'added nothing' to him, and since he received revelation in the desert, it would not be presumptious to assume that he received the Holy Spirit early on in his Christian walk.

You err by making Acts 10 an exception to 'the rule.' You err by creating a 'rule' in the first place. The Bible doesn't teach that the Spirit was given exclusively through the laying on of the apostles hands, with one historical exception. YOu err by making Acts 10, 'the exception' instead of including it into your understanding of how the Spirit was given out.

You wrote, >>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.<<

Prove this statement from scripture. Prove to me where it says that no one but Christ and the apostles had the power to bestow the Holy Spirit. You can't. You can show that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. But even that passage leaves open the posibility of God giving this power to others. What happened to Cornelius was no doubt a surprise. Wow, God baptized Gentiles- GENTILES- which the Holy Ghost, just as he did that group of Jews at the beginning. What a shocking thing this must have been to the Jews. But the Bible doesn't teach that this is a one-time exception. Read Acts 4. The Holy Ghost can fall on groups of people when they are praying, and fill them. No mention of the apostles laying hands on people in that passage.

God is soverign. The Holy Ghost doesn't follow man-made rules like a computer program. God does what He wants to do. He acts in accordance with what He has promised and revealed because that is His nature. But your method of reasoning 'Because God did X, Y, and Z in the scriptures, He will not repeat X, Y, or Z at a later date' just doesn't hold water.

In Acts, we see the Spirit being given out,

1. Poured out 'spontaneously' on occasions that we read about in Acts 2, 4, and 10. 2. Given through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8, 19.) 3. Given by some means to Paul around the time of his conversion years before he was sent out on an apostolic mission. It is apparent that the 12 were not involved when Paul was baptized.

It is just plain foolish for you to conclude from these passages that the Spirit cannot be given out except through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Peter's own comments in Acts 8 alone shed doubt on this conclusion. You need to repent of teaching false conclusions based on your own eisegesis. Do you really believe this stuff you are teaching, or do you just want to 'stick to your guns' in the debate? Are you blind, spiritually, from understanding simple concepts?

God is soveriegn. Hebrews 2 teaches that signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost were given according to God's own will. What we can see from the passages in Acts about the outpouring of the Spirit

Saffold,

You hold that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was only given out twice.

Well, let me ask you a question, do you believe the baptism of John was from heaven or from men? Do you believe John was a prophet.

John preached to Israeli's that one would come after him, who was mightier than he, who would baptize them in the Holy Ghost and with fire.

Look at the passages. It doesn't say he was just preaching to the 12 and Cornelius and the Italian band. Study the context.

So which of these is true, in your opinion:

1. John was preaching falsely. The people he was preaching to wouldn't be baptized in the Holy Ghost and/or with fire. 2. The 12 and Cornelius and the Italian band were baptized with the Holy Ghost, but all the others were baptized with fire. That would include the other disciples of Christ who heard John's preach those words about baptism with the Holy GHost and fire. Too bad, they weren't one of the 12, or of Cornelius' band, so they got baptized with fire. 3. Lee Saffold is just plain wrong on this one.

I say 3 is the most likely scenario. If you consider John's preaching to be true, you need to realize that he preached to more than just the 12. Did Jesus baptize the people with the Holy Ghost and fire or not? If he didn't then would you say John was not a true prophet?

Now, look at the terminology that is used concerning the incidents where people were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Consider this a paraphrase from memory: 'Filled with the Holy Ghost' 'the Holy Ghost came on them.' The same type of terminology is used in Acts 2, 10, and 11, that is used to refer to other Spirit-empowering incidents in Acts.

This is a quote that illustrates the foolishness of your stance:

>>>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. <<<

Let's break down these quotes.

>>>>>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.<<<

Where does the Bible teach this? You are using a very flawed method of interpretation. The Bible clearly teaches that it is not an exhaustive account of everything that happened. The Bible doesn't mention that E. Lee Saffold was every baptized with water. Saffold is not a Corinthian, whose baptism is mentioned as having occurred in a 'group.' There is no record of a baptism that would include Mr. Saffold. So therefore, should I conclude that Mr. Saffold has never been baptized? After all, there is no record in the Bible that Mr. Saffold has ever been baptized.

Consider the quote from you above. Also consider the following fact- the Bible does not teach that the 'baptism of the Holy Ghost' only occurred twice in history. The Bible doesn't even teach that God only fills bpeople with the Spirit through the laying on of the Holy Ghost and a baptism of the Holy Ghost experience. You have examples of scripture for both layingon of the apostles hands, and dramatic baptism of hte Holy Ghost experiences. Tongues is not mentioned in Acts 4, but they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Paul wrote to saints to be filled with the Spirit. The implication is that if Paul commanded it, that it could happen. There is no mention of the saints that Paul wrote this two requiring an apostle to come and lay hands on 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. <<<

Bad logic. The Bible doesn't say that E. Lee Saffold has ever brushed his teeth. Does that mean that you haven't brushed your teeth? The Bible doesn't say that E. Lee Saffold has ever used a computer. How do we know that is really you on the other end of the PC?

Acts gives us several cases and examples of things that happened. Acts shows us how God works, how the church can grow, and gives us a record of what God did during a certain period of time. Acts does not give us an exhaustive account of all that God did during that time period or all that he will ever do.

All scripture is profitable for doctrine. Try looking at Acts as a book that shows how God can work, not as a book that limits the work of God to a certain period of history.

Lee, I challenge you to show me where in the Bible it says that the Holy Ghost was only give by the laying on of the apostles hands, apart from two occasions. You can't show me. It's not written. I don't want 'proof by means of faulty logic'. Show me scripture.

While your at it, prove to me from the scriptures that you exist. The Bible may not label more than two occurrences as 'baptism in the Holy Ghost.' But that doesn't meant that other occurrences of it did not happen. The Bible doesn't mention your birth. that doesn't mean that you were never born. Acts shows us how God can work in and through the church. It doesn't show us everythign that God has done.

And something else, the Bible just doesn't teach that all the Corinthians had apostolic hands haid on them. Paul preached there, but Apollos also watered. There were people there ministering the word, mentioned at the end of I Corinthians. Based on what we know from the Bible, and church history, it makes sense to believe that the church grew, and didn't remain the same size. God gave the increase. Yet, Paul wrote to these people as people who had received the Holy Ghost. The Bible- not just Lee Saffold's reasonings- says that the Spirit distributes the gifts to whom he will. I Corinthians does NOT teach that the Spirit only willed to give these gifts to those that had had apostolic hands laid on them. That is Saffold's theory, not the Bible's. I refuse to add Saffoldian theories to the word of God. You should as well.

Have enough fear of the Lord not to twist your interpretation of scripture, as you twist the meaning of the words of those who post on this newsgroup.

I had written,

> 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. <

Saffold wrote, >>Now with this statement Brother 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!<<<

Do you really believe this, or are you just being disingenious? And you call other people liars. You have the nerve to write that I _implied_ that Simon might have been able to buy this power if his heart was right with God. You need to repent of lying, or learn how to comprehend what you read. I implied no such thing.

I wrote that Peter said he had not PART in that ministry because his heart was not right before God. I didn't IMPLY that Simon would have been able to BUY a part in the ministry if his heart were right. Did you really think I meant to imply this, or do you have a serious comprehension problem?

You know, your average unbeliever on the Internet has enough common courtesy to know it is not appropriate to twist someone else's arguments around to make your own arguments look good. At least try to show the same level of morality in your posts that the average Internet heathen is able to show. Many pagans know better than to build up a disingenious straw man.

Simon had no _part or lot_ in that ministry because his heart wwas not right before God. Whether Simon could have been _freely given_ part or lot in that ministry if his heart was right before God is not something Peter clearly answers. What we have is what the Bible says, and from reading the scriptures, we see that the reason Peter gives that Simon didn't receive part or lot in this ministry is that his heart was not right before God. Peter could clearly see that his heart wasn't right because he tried to buy this power with money.

>>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. <<<

Lee, if by 'Word of God' you mean exactly 'The Holy Bible' I would like for you to provide scriptural proof for this doctrinal stance. If a soldier is given a gun to be 'fully equipped' that doesn't meean the gun is the only piece of equipment he needs. If you send a naked soldier out on the battle field with no bullets- but with a gun, see how well he does.

The Bible is not 'all we need' in a strict literal sense. We also need, faith, salvation, etc. We need to experience the reality of what the Bible talks about. Not just have a copy of the Bible and read it. The Bible talks about having love. If we just read about having love, but don't have love, what good will that do us? Remember what Paul said about if he could understand all mysteries and all knowledge, but had not love?

The gifts of the Spirit are 'kosher.' The Bible shows us that they are good. The Bible teaches that God gives out these gifts. The Bible encourages saints to desire earnestly to prophecy, and to forbid not to speak with tongues- apostolic commandments from the scripture. The written word tells me about love. But having the Bible isn't the same thing as having love. The written word tells me about the gifts of the Spirit, but having the Bible isn't the same thing as having the gifts of the Spirit.

So, give me some scriptural support for this man-made 'Bible only' religion that you hold to. Show me in the scripture where it says that the Holy Spirit ONLY works through the written word. God will not contradict what He has revealed through the Scriptures. It is impossible for God to lie. The Bible is 'canon' a measuring rod used to measure other things by. This canon tells me about gifts of the Spirit. Show me fromt he Bible where it says that the Bible replaces the gifts of the Spirit. Show me where it says that the Bible's own teachings are not valid any more because we now have the Bible.

Paul's teachings are based on the idea that Christians have the Holy Spirit, and are to be filled with the Spirit. This is directly taught in scripture, and it is also an underlying premise. The 'default' is that God works the same way today that he worked in the New Testament. If someone comes along with a theory that God doesnt' need to baptize people any more because he doesn't work the same way He did in the Bible, you would rightly reject such a teaching. But now, you have this theory about a Christianity devoid of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Where does the Bible predict a future change of the state of the Christian? Where does the Bible predict that God would withdraw the Spirit fromteh hearts of believers? It doesn't? You just have this made-up view which you support using a few scriptures and arguments from silence based on the laying on of the apostles hands.

The occurrence in Acts 19 doesn't go very far to support your opinion. Paul asked a group of disciples if they had not receieved the Holy Ghost when (or since) they believed. If it were not common for believers to receive the Holy Ghost, even out in the boonies away from Jerusalem, why would Paul ask such a question? These men didn't even understand the Gospel?

Btw, the reason I didn't reply to some things you've posted in the past is because I didn't read all of them. I respond to parts I read from you. But as I have repeatedly told you in the past, I don't read all of the stuff you write, even to me. I have to wade through too much 'attitude' and obnoxious inuendos and allegations. When your emails get really nasty, I doubt anyone on here reads all of them. You may get quite a kick out of writing accusations, picking words apart, twisting other people's arguements, etc.- when in reality no one reads all your words. I don't know for sure. I'm just guessing the average reader doesn't have the stomach for 27 page diatribes against people when you really get down to writing the real accusatory bile. I'm under no obligation to read your posts, or to answer everything you put up on this board, so if I don't answer something, that doesn't man it's because I couldn't answer it. It may mean I just didn't read what you wrote. I doubt I'll ever finish reading that last post. I skimmed parts. If you want me to read a post you write, write it concisely, and leave out the accusations, inuindo, and unChristlike comments.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Brethren:

Connie has, in her last post listed several passages that were written to persons who actually had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them which they received through the lying on of the apostles hands. They had the Holy Spirit in a miraculous sense which was manifested in “Signs, Wonders, and manifold POWERS which they demonstrated and which proved that they had the Holy Spirit as described in these passages. (Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:16-20; 1 Cor. 2:1-4). And she does not have the Holy Spirit at all and neither does Brother Link for they have not the ability nor the willingness to manifest the powers that accompanied those within whom the Holy Spirit dwelt. And she assumes that these verses have the same application to us today who have not received the Holy Spirit. For we have no living apostles to lay their hands upon us. WE are gradually discussing each of the verses that she quoted which apply to our subject. And several of them we have covered numerous times in other threads. But those, which she has quoted, that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, which are numerous indeed, we shall take no notice of except to say that when she takes the time to actually make an argument from them we will answer her argument. That is, if she can form an argument. We have yet over the last year seen her actually form any arguments worthy of note. She does however mention two scriptures that we have already explained in connection with this subject. 1 Corinthians 2:14 which we have discussed in our post above and she has not even attempted a reply to what we have said about it. And the other is from Romans 8, which she quotes as follows:

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

This passage is from Romans 8:9 and we repeat our previous discussion of this verse in response.

Romans 8:9 "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

Before studying in detail this particular verse let us take a brief survey through the first seven Chapters of the Book of Romans.

There are three major divisions of the Roman Letter.

I. The problem of sin and it’s solution (chapter 1:18-8:39). Sin and it’s consequences are set forth in the Old Testament and it’s solution in the gospel. II. The problem of the Jews (Chapter 8, 9, 10): The Jew’s misunderstanding of the law lead to their rejection of Christ and the gospel. III. The problem of application to conduct of righteousness, which is by obedience of faith. (chapters 12-16). A. Will the righteousness, which is by obedience of faith, work in everyday life? Will it bring unity among men, both Jew and Gentile, in the one body, the church? B. These last chapters set forth the importance of understanding and applying the principles of the gospel in daily conduct so that all men can live together in harmony and peace.

I. The first main division of this letter is chapters 1:18-8:39. A. It is necessary to get a birds eye view of this division of Paul’s letter in order to understand the eighth chapter in general and Romans 8:9 in particular. B. From Romans 1:18 through the seventh chapter Paul: 1. Traces the origin and development of sin down through the Old Testament 2. He shows that no solution to sin was found in paganism or Judaism. 3. He accepts the fact that Judaism was a God-ordained religion, but its design was temporary and preparatory, because it offered no real solution to the problem of sin. 4. Since the law could not solve the problem of sin, there had to be something beyond the Law, and that was Christ and the gospel.

In order to prove this truth, it was necessary to discuss the nature of the law, its weaknesses and its purpose. These various aspects and weaknesses of the law are contrasted with the gospel in the first seven chapters of this book. But if the law could not solve this problem of sin, how and where could its solution be found? The concluding chapter of this section, chapter eight, answers this question.

Thus Paul’s approach to this problem of sin was to trace God’s promise to Abraham from its beginning through Judaism to its final culmination in Christ and the gospel. The substance of Paul’s argument in this connection was that the church, made up of both Jew and Gentile, was the end product of the promise God made to Abraham and this was God’s solution to the problem of sin.

Why did Paul approach the subject from this standpoint? The Jews had rejected Christ and the gospel. Since the Jews alone were God’s chosen people before Christ came into the world they were insisting that they were still the elect, even after Christ had come. In contending that they were God’s chosen people, they were denying the integrity of the gospel that Paul preached. This is the reason for the detailed discussion of the Jew in chapters 9, 10, and 11. If, after the coming of Christ the Jew remained God’s chosen people, it would follow that the gospel Paul preached, in offering salvation to Jew and Gentile alike, was false, in the Jewish mind. This is Paul’s defense of his gospel of grace, appropriated by the obedience of faith, placing the Jew and Gentile in one body, the church, and on equal standing before God.

But, since it was necessary for Paul to defend this gospel. Why was it necessary? His gospel must have been under attack from some source. What was this source? In addition to the Jews who refused to accept Christ and the gospel there were those who accepted it under false pretenses, or without understanding its full implication. (See Acts 15 and the entire book of Galatians). Judaistic teachers followed Paul seemingly everywhere he went preaching the gospel, and sought to subvert the churches he established and many that he did not establish directly himself. They denied that he was an apostle of Christ, repudiated the gospel of Christ that he preached, and attempted to lead his converts to accept circumcision and the law (see Galatians 5:1-4). Paul’s refusal to bow to these false teachers finally landed him in prison. The Roman Letter is one of Paul’s in depth answers to the Jews who despised the gospel of Christ that he preached, and to the Judaizing teachers that were perverting this certified gospel in the church. (Galatians 1:7-13; Romans 16:17-18).

This raises the question of how Paul defended the gospel and established its truthfulness against all of his opponents? Paul makes two appeals in this letter to the Romans: 1). His discussion of how the Old Testament showed the weakness of the law to do anything about the problem of sin and his appeal to the prophets who announced beforehand the coming of Christ and the gospel. 2). His second appeal was to his having the Holy Spirit and it’s miraculous manifestations of it and his apostolic gift of imparting the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. (Romans 1:1 & Romans 15:13-25).

While there is much more that should be mentioned in this connection, to be brief, chapter 8 of Romans is the concluding portion of the first division of Paul’s argument in the Roman Letter. Thus chapter eight cannot be isolated or severed from the flow of Paul’s argument from Chapter 1:18 through chapter seven. Chapter eight is actually an expanded commentary on chapters 3:19-31. The first four verses of Chapter eight form the foundation for Paul’s continued discussion of the above mentioned items and the conclusion of that line of thought in Chapter eight. Let us read the first four verses of this chapter together.

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them that which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For the Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 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, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4).

Notice the phrase “there is therefore now”, in Romans 8:1. “Therefore” puts the chapter in contrast with something. What is this contrast that Paul is making? Evidently it is a continuation of the contrast that Paul had been making throughout his first section previous to chapter eight. And this is what we would expect one to do who is summing up and concluding a particular argument. The chief contrast that Paul has made from 2:17 through chapter seven is the contrast between the law and the gospel. The word “now” in the first verse of chapter eight further intensifies this contrast.

Paul uses this same means earlier. Notice how he plays upon the words “therefore” and “now”. “THEREFORE by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: For by the law is the knowledge of sin. But NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. (Romans 3:20-21).

And again notice: “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But NOW we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:5-6). Both the Jews who had rejected Christ and the Judiazing teachers in the church were denying these divine principles. And chapter eight summarizes these principles and answers the arguments of those who were opposed to Paul and the gospel that he preached. This is true whether his opponents were Jews who rejected Christ or Judiazing teachers in the church who were willing to accept the gentiles provided that they would accept the law and be circumcised. But Paul shows that his gospel was spiritual, not fleshly and that it was for Jew and Gentile alike. Now notice the the use of the phrase “who walk not after the flesh”. The word “flesh” is used in two ways:

1. It is used as a reference to Judaism, which was a fleshly, carnal religion.

“ Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinaces, imposed on them until the time of reformation…for the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: (Hebrews 9:9,10,13). The word “flesh is sometimes used as a synonym for the word “Judaism”. I have time for only one example of such use. In writing to the Philippians Paul said: “Though, I might have confidence in the flesh. If any man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee. (Philippians 3:4-5) ( see also 2 Cor. 5:16; Romans 7:5).). In this verse the word flesh is used to equal Judaism.

Romans 7:5 makes it clear in this context that the phrase “in the flesh” is sometimes a reference to Judaism. “ For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth death,” (Romans 7:5). “In the flesh” in this verse was equal to being under the law, which was a fleshly system. It is important to keep this in mind for we shall see that this is how the phrase “in the flesh” is used in chapter eight. Finally, Gal. 3:3 establishes this use of the phrase “in the flesh” as referring to Judaism. “Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3).

2. The word flesh is also used to refer to the body.

“But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lust thereof.” (Romans 13:14). “And the works of the flesh are manifest which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings and such like of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Gal. 5:19-21).

Please notice also that the word “Spirit” is also sometimes used in two ways in the New Testament. 1. The word is sometimes used as a synonym of the gospel. The gospel is spiritual. It has to do with man’s spirit. The word Spirit is sometimes used where it simply means the gospel. Notice this verse, “whoso hath made us (apostles) able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter (the law), but of the spirit (the gospel): For the letter killeth (the law); but the spirit giveth life (the gospel). (2 Cor. 3:6). 2. A second use of the Phrase “in the Spirit” is to indicate the miraculous and direct operation of the Spirit by which the gospel was given and confirmed. It is used in this way to emphasize the gospel in contrast with false teachers who were uninspired and therefore could not confirm that their teaching was from God. “ But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and I will know, not the SPEECH of them that are puffed up, but the POWER. For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in POWER (1 Cor. 4:19-20). “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 Thess1:5). You see that in New Testament times the preacher proved that his message was from God and therefore true by doing miracles to confirm that God was speaking through him. Today the preacher proves that his message is from God by showing that he is speaking the same thing that was spoken by those who proved by their miraculous powers to have been inspired of God to reveal the gospel to us.

Now, with this background we can read Romans 8:9 and see just how it fits into this context that I have described and the use of the words and phrases that I have explained. “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9).

“But ye are not in the flesh…” This is a direct statement made to the Romans that they were not in Judaism. Does one ask, why would Paul say to the gentiles, “you are not in Judaism”? Let it be remembered that this is exactly what the Judaizing teachers were trying to accomplish. They were trying to bring these Roman Christians, gentiles, into Judaism. These false teachers were more than willing to accept a gentile in Christ so long as he agreed to be circumcised and keep the law. These false teachers were basically saying the gospel was alright as far as it went but it did not perfect the Christian (Gal. 3:3). If a gentile accepted circumcision and the law, would he not then be “in the flesh”; that is under the law, in Judaism, as opposed to being in Christ? (Gal. 5:4).

“…But in the Spirit” is put in sharp contrast with “not in the flesh”. Christians were not in Judaism as these false teachers had been claiming. What was the proof that they were not in Judaism? The Proof was “in the Spirit”. Paul’s argument here is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. How would “in the spirit” answer these false teachers? The Miraculous manifestations were proof of the gospel received by the Romans. There were spiritual gifts in Rome. (Romans 12:3-8). Paul had even said in the introduction of the letter that he wanted to go to Rome and impart spiritual gifts to them. (Romans1:1). But why would Paul want to impart spiritual gifts to those who already had them? The conferring of spiritual gifts by the hands of Paul would further confirm the fact that Paul was an apostle for none other than an apostle had this power. And such would further confirm the genuineness of the gospel that he had been preaching. Paul wanted to go to Rome and impart spiritual gifts, not because the church at Rome did not have any but to establish his apostleship.

Now, just in case some may think that “in the Spirit” does not mean “to be inspired by the spirit” let me quote what Thayer says. His comment on the phrase “in the Spirit” is: “to be in the power of, to be actuated by, to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, (see Romans 8:9).” Thayer further adds that, “the phrase “in the Spirit” is used in opposition to the phrase “in the flesh”. “In the flesh” and “in the spirit” are in opposition to one another. “In the flesh” was equal to Judaism, or the law, and particularly a reference to the false teachers, who were “natural men” sensual, uninspired having not the Spirit.” Thus this “in the Spirit” of Romans 8:9 is equal to being inspired by the Spirit. The same Phrase is found in Revelation 1:10 and 4:2. While some may question whether 1:10 means the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of the apostle John, though I think it clearly refers to his being inspired to receive the revelations of the vision in that book. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning in Revelation 4:2. “After this I looked, and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit; and behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on that throne.” (Rev. 4:2)

So, one can see that the subject under consideration in this verse is a contrast that Paul makes between those who were “in the flesh” or the Judaizing teachers and those who were “in the Spirit” those who were inspired by the Spirit, in particular the apostle Paul himself. Thus Paul is telling the Romans that those who were “in the flesh” or the Judiasing teachers could not confirm that their teaching was from God and therefore they were “not of Christ” because they were not “in the Spirit” or inspired by the Spirit. So also those who “hath not the spirit of Christ” were those Judiazing teachers that did not have the Supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit as the apostles did and could not show that they belonged to Christ and that their teaching was “of Christ” as the apostle Paul could.

Thus, to take this verse out from its context and cause it to mean that all Christian in every age must have a “non-miraculous” measure of the Holy Spirit otherwise they do not belong to Christ does great violence to this context. And it makes Paul’s words have no effect toward establishing his argument that the gospel was for all men without distinction and separate from the law. In order to show that his words were true and the Judaizing teachers were false he appealed to the miraculous or supernatural powers that attended his preaching and that of the other apostles and those possing the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands. And he contrasts it with the lack of such powers among those perverting the gospel as evidence to prove that they were not “of Christ” and “none of His”. In other words, their doctrine had nothing to do with Christ. Paul was not even remotely discussing the idea that persons must have the Holy Spirit in some none miraculous or ordinary sense in every age or they would not belong to Christ. In fact, any non-miraculous “gift of the Holy Spirit” that is not manifested outwardly in any extraordinary way could never be used to support any OBJECTIVE argument such as the one Paul was intricately making in this book in general and this verse in particular.

I sincerely hope that it helps you to see the reason that I am not impressed with the notion that this verse teaches that those who do not “claim” to have some non-miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit automatically received at baptism they do not belong to Christ. The idea that because I consider myself to be in the same condition as were the Samaritans before Peter and John laid their hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit that I might not “belong to Christ” is not even remotely taught in the scriptures. It is especially not taught in this one (Romans 8:9) that you have quoted for us. For they, as was I, were forgiven of their sins and redeemed by their obedient faith in Christ when they were baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26,27) though they did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid their hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. For as the scripture says, “when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostle’s hands the Holy Spirit was given…” (Acts 8:16-18)

I am strongly opposed to the false doctrine that the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit that we see in the New Testament continues with us to this day for reasons that I have described numerous times in this forum.

For just as God proved that he sent Moses when he delivered the Law to the children of Israel. Just so God confirmed that He sent His chosen messengers to “once for all deliver” the gospel to us. And he established for all time that they were truly sent from Him by the Holy Spirit which he gave them and the manifestation of his power through the Holy Spirit in confirming their words as the truth. This is the idea of a confirmed revelation from God. Few to day seem to want to claim a REVELATION from God today but many want so desperately to claim for themselves the gifts and powers that were designed for and belonged to CONFIRMATION. But if there is no REVELATION today that is also no need whatsoever for any CONFIRMATION. God’s word has been REVEALED and it has also been CONFIRMED (Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:17-20). Just as God is no longer revealing His will through living inspired men today he is also no longer confirming it with “signs, wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will” (Heb. 2:3,4) today. This task has been completed and because it has been done it is not now happening anywhere today. But if God does decide to reveal something today, which he could if he wanted to, he would most certainly CONFIRM it. WE have the word of God and it is sufficient for all our spiritual needs (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 1:3). WE have all things that pertain to life and Godliness. (1 Peter 1:3). Let us follow the word of God with full assurance that those words came from God with the confirmation of the Power of the Holy Spirit in those men to whom these verses apply. Those who actually had the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead, dwelling within them as was manifested by the manifold powers which they possessed and DEMONSTRATED. (1 Cor. 2:1- 4). And demonstrated to confirm for us and for all time that God had has spoken through his Son (Hebrews 1:1). The word of God is sufficient for our salvation (1 Tim. 3:16,17) and we do not have because we were not promised nor do we need the miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit today. And there was no other kind of indwelling in the New Testament that was not miraculous and supernatural.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Lee Saffold,

You sure have found ways to make yoruself look foolish. Let's look at some verses from Acts 9

17. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Notice that one of the reasons Ananias came to Saul was that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. This is plain, written right there in teh Bible for everyone to see. Either you accused me ebcause you were ignorant of this verse, or selectively quoted verses, leaving these out, in order to build up a case to accuse me. Either way, you're accusations and inuendo are unjustified.

Let's look at what you wrote.

>>>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!<<<<

First of all, I did not state dogmatically that Paul received the Holy Spirit through Ananias hands. We do see Ananais saying that the Lord Jesus had sent Ananias so that Paul might see and that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. Immediately after that, Ananias laid hands on Saul/Paul and he was able to see. After that Saul was baptized.

The passage does not say at what point Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost. What we do definitely know from the passage was that one of the reasons that Ananias came was for Paul to be filled with the Holy Ghost. the passage does not indicate at what point, but it certainly doesn't give any indications that Paul was filled with the Spirit a long time later in Arabia.

It is conceivable that Saul was filled with the Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him. Conrelius was baptized with the Spirit before his baptism. It is also conceivable that Ananias laid hands on Saul after his baptism. Or the Holy Spirit may have come on Paul during or after his baptism without Ananias laying his hands on him for that purpose. The text of scripture is not conclusive. I did not say it was in the recent thread under discussion, in spite of your accusations.

No one is debating against the idea that Ananias went to Saul so that he might receive his sight. No one here is debating against the idea that Ananias laid hands on Saul so that he might be healed. But we do see Ananias saying that Jesus sent him so that Saul might receive his sight AND be filled with the Holy Ghost, right before he laid hands on Saul. The idea that Ananias laid hands on him for both pruposes is not inconceivable, and in no way undermines the fact that Ananias laid hands on Saul that he might receive his sight.

Whatever the case, one of the reasons Ananias was sent to Saul was so that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. This is clear from scripture.

Now, Lee, you should have the dignity to pick up the crow pie you baked for yourself, and eat it. If a man of good Christian character, in a weak moment, overlooked a verse of scripture, and then accused his opponent of all kinds of nasty things for believing that scripture, I would expect this man of good Christian character to apologize to the one he had villified. However, that takes humility, and the ability to admit that you are wrong when you are wrong. These are qualities that appear to be lacking in you, Lee, based on your previous posts. So, if you were a man of good Christian character, I would expect you to humble yourself, admit were wrong, and apologize for all those nasty things you said to me. After all, you misrepresented my ideas. (I _suggested the possibility_ in the previous thread- that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost in conjunction with the laying on of Ananias hands.) Then you wrote all kinds of insulting rhetoric against me based on that misrepresentation. In the end, I had scripture to back up the idea that one of the reasons Ananias was sent to Saul was that he might recieve the Holy Ghost.

Frankly, I don't expect you to apologize and admit that you were wrong, right now, since you don't generally yourself to be a humble man of good Christian character on this discussion forum. Rather, you are more wreckless with your words than a South Korean taxi driver is with his taxi. You slander others, accuse based on little evidence, misrepresent others ideas. I have been praying for you to repent. And perhaps when that occurs, and you get all this sin out of your heart, you will be able to humble yourself, admit when you are wrong, and show good Christian character.

Actually being humble, apologizing, admitting you are wrong, treating others like people, and showing a little love or even basic human decency that pagans are able to show may not be fun for you. Maybe you get a lot more satisfaction out of twisting the meaning of other people's arguments, accusing them, slandering them, and trying as hard as you can to find a way to make someone else look stupid. If behaving like this were not entertaining to you, why would you do it? Why would you fill pages and pages up with bile? Let me encourage you to repent. Repentance will do you a lot more good than the brief periods of satisfaction, entertainment, self-justification, or whatever it is you feel when you write your long, unedifying attacks on believers in Christ. I notice that many take issue with you over the idea that Christians now cannot be filled with the Sirit. What I haven't noticed is anyone insisting that you, E. Lee Saffold, have the Holy Spirit in you. Could this be because of the behavior you display on the Internet. Plenty of Pharisees could quote scriptures. Repent, Lee, and put this carnal formof entertainment behind you. Seek to edify, not to argue for argument's sake. It will be better for you and for a lot of other people.

Lee, if you would refrain from accusing other people wrecklessly for their arguments in the first place, you wouldn't look so foolish when the arguments of such people turn out to have some basis in scripture.

You quote from Paul in which he tells about receiving the Gospel which he preached to butress your argument that Paul received the Holy Ghost directly from Christ. however, the verse you quote is about Paul receiving his revelation directly from the Lord. it does not say that no one else was involved in his receiving the Holy Ghost. You have no scripture to support this idea.

You, (Lee Saffold) also write,

>>Now, the apostle Paul received everything directly from Christ just as the other apostles and he was therefore not behind them in any way. <<

The Bible just simply does not teach that Paul received everything 'directly' from Christ. Paul, like the rest of us, received some of the blessings of God through other believers. Paul's spirit was refreshed by some brethren. On that occasion, Christ didn't come down and directly refresh Paul's spirit. The Lord worked through others. Paul wrote about the functioning body of Christ with various gifts in operation in I Corinthians 12. As a part of the body of Christ, Paul was exempt from thsi passage. He received ministry from other parts of the body of Christ.

We see that Paul received a gift from the Philipians. This disproves your assertion that Paul received everythign directly from Christ. Christ didnt' come down with a gift of cash. Instead, some Philipian saints brought Paul a gift. Paul received prophetic ministry from other saints.

Paul as unique in that he received His revelation from Christ concerning the Gospel in the desert. He certainly had seen some Christian witness testified, because he was present at the stoning of Stephen. But the Lord gave him revelation of the Gospel in the desert.

So what about this idea that Paul did not receive the Holy Ghost through the laying of hands of another?

You wrote,

>>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! <<

First, your conclusion is certainly not based on scripture. From reading the verses from Acts 9 that I qutoed above, no one can conclude, just based on the Bible alone, that Paul's reception of the Spirit had absolutely nothing to do with the laying on of Ananias' hands. if Paul had refused the laying on of his hands, and refused to cooperate, do you think he would have been healed or filled with the Spirit? And keep in mind that when Ananias laid hands on Saul, he gave two reasons for having been sent, that Saul might receive his sight, and that Saul might be filled with the Holy Ghost.

I noticed you steered away from the verses which contain this information when you tried to demonize me for suggesting that the laying on of Ananias' hands may have had something to do with Saul's reception of the Spirit. I still don't knwo if that is because you were ignorant of the verses, overlooked them, or simply disingeniously wanted to avoid quoting verses that would hamper your written attack on me.

Secondly, this contradicts the case you've been making all along. In previous messages, you've been sticking by the idea that the baptism in the Holy Ghost only occured twice. Now you have to adjust your view to allow for a third occasion- Paul being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Why don't you just go all the way and get rid of this illogical idea that because scripture only specifically refers to two occurences as baptism with the Holy Ghost, that it only occurred twice in history. You are already bucking your own theory with this new theory of an unspecified baptism of the Holy Ghost that you think may have happened to Paul. Why not just go ahead and get rid of this silly notion that all occurances of the baptism of the Holy Ghost are specifically mentioned and labeled as such in scripture? Acts doesn't contain every thing that every happened. Your baptism is not specifically mentioned in the book of Acts.

I doubt i'll ever read all the text you've written on this thread. What's the point? After all, the chances seem slim that any others will be convinced by what you've written any time soon. You have shown your tenacity at holding to false positions, even when shown to be wrong (like your illogical conclusions I addressed in a previous message. Scan for 'thus' in the thread- the argument I'm thinking of is about your making Acts 10 an exception.) Why should I read all of your messages and argue point for point with you, when you show a serious inability or unwillingness to realize when you are wrong much of the time- an ability most reasonable human beings who participate in such discussions usually show. So until your 'heart problem' gets fixed, I don't see any reason to read through all of your messages. I may pick and choose parts to reply to at times. Btw, just in case you want to answer with a smart-alecy message about not caring if I read your messages, I'm just offering this for your information. I know you haven't categorically demanded that I read everything you write.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

BRETHREN & SISTREN,

To expand on what has been said multiple times concerning the "blah,blah,blah" of Dr.-Prof.-Fourth Man of the Trinity-Lee Saffold's ramblings within this forum...PRAISE GOD for the PAGE DOWN button!!! It is no wonder the Church as a whole is struggling -- with people who display Christ in the manner represented by Saffold's so-called intellect. I wonder if he is related to the leadership I mentioned under the thread - Another one bites the dust!

Satan wants nothing more than to kill everything in its infancy. Moses & Jesus are perfect examples! What Satan cannot distroy in its infancy, he will corrupt...see the rest of Scripture as an example. I am sure this forum was designed to discuss issues in a positive setting for the purpose of brainstorming ideas and uplifting the church and its leadership through the resource of many minds. Yet it has turned into a debate over what the word IS is, according to a handful of legalistic self-righteous self-proclaimed intellects. Satan has not killed it in its infancy, but people like Saffold and (a while back)Nelda ?sp? have turned it into a he said/she said rebuttal of nonsense. I'm sure this thread will be picked apart starting with the greeting (meant to be sarcastic) and down to every last word. KUDOS to you who are able to ignore the people who represent the mentioned above...and I will join those ranks as I retake this forum back for God and His purposes. See PRAISES & PRAYER OF JABEZ...

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001

Hello, Jason,

Well, i had to look up 'Jabez' and this is what my Bible Dictionary says about him:

JABEZ (sorrowful): [I don't like what that may portend}.

1.) A man who was considered more honorable than his brethren (I Chronicles4: 9,10).

2.) A place, probably in Judah where lived the FAMILIES OF SCRIBES. (I Chronicles 2:55).

I hope you succeed in bringing topics of interest to all and that they can be discussed with Christian forbearance.

Hope springs eternal, actually.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001

Brother Fields:

You have said:

“BRETHREN & SISTREN, To expand on what has been said multiple times concerning the "blah,blah,blah" of Dr.-Prof.-Fourth Man of the Trinity-Lee Saffold's ramblings within this forum...PRAISE GOD for the PAGE DOWN button!!!”

It seems that your intent is to “expand” on what you believe has been seen “multiple times” as “blah, blah, blah,” of Dr. –Prof-Fourth Man of the Trintiy-Lee Saffold’s Ramblings” within this forum. You fail to notice however that the “multiple times” of such being “said” does not come from multiple people saying it. In instead is from the same few people saying it “multiple times” in the hope that if it is repeated with sufficient frequency it will finally become true. So far, despite their multiple insults, it has yet to be accepted as true by the majority who read this forum. Nevertheless, you have “expanded” upon it by adding something no one else has ever said before! I congratulate you on your originality. I most certainly have never heard anyone in this forum even remotely imply that there were any “men” in the Divine Trinity and most assuredly no one has even begun to contemplate, least of all myself, that Lee Saffold was the “fourth man” within such “Trinity”. It is obvious that you know neither the meaning of the word “trinity” nor it’s proper use. Any schoolboy can easily learn the etymology and definition of the term but since you have failed to bother with learning the meaning of the terms that you use I will now provide it for your future edification. The etymology of the word “trinity” is defined as:

“Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold”. This word dates back to the 13th century and you are probably the first person since that time to use this term in the sense of “fourfold”. The word is defined thus:

“1: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma 2 not capitalized: a group of three closely related persons or things”

From this definition one can see that the word is used to refer to what the scriptures call the Godhead. And therefore it is speaking only of divine personages and E. Lee Saffold has never claimed to be a deity in any of his “ramblings” in this forum”. Your sacrilegious implication that the divine Godhead is made up of the God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and a fourth person named Lee Saffold is a sin. And your putting it into the form of a “joke” only makes it more sinful. That the pathetically human and sinful man in the personage of E. Lee Saffold who writes pathetic “ramblings” in this forum is even remotely equal to any personage within the Godhead is a shameful thought. And who can say such a thing, even “jokingly”, without bringing our God down in his heart to the level of the pathetically human and sinful mankind. Christ our Lord was human as well as divine but he was not sinful. I do not know how you failed to learn that the subject of the Godhead is not to be used as the basis of foolish talking and idle, ignorant, jesting. (Eph. 5:4). But I do pray that you will learn to have more respect and love for God than you demonstrate with this comment. Your intent was to insult me and this I am willing to accept for I, as a sinful man, may very well deserve to be insulted on occasion. But to use the Godhead for the purpose of an insult is shameful and sinful to all that love God and are looking for his appearing and the judgement.

But, I believe that all who have read this forum know that E. Lee Saffold has never claimed to be equal with our God and to be a member of the Godhead. And your implication that anyone in this forum perceives of E. Lee Saffold as being so worthy of such respect is proof that you either do not read this forum very much or you are incapable of comprehending what you do read. For I have received, justifiably at times, much ridicule in this forum as your insults in your post evidence. And I most certainly have not, nor do I deserve to, receive respect and praise in this forum. And assuredly I have not received such praise that would even begin to make anyone think that there is a problem with my being thought of by anyone in this forum more highly than I ought.

And please let everyone take note that E. Lee Saffold is neither a “Dr.” nor a “professor”. I have said this before and I will say it again. I do not have the educational credentials to be rightfully and truthfully called in any sense whatsoever either a “Dr.” or a professor. I am not an “academic” and have never once claimed to be such. I have studied and learned and have a degree from college but that is the extent of it. And if I were a “Dr.” or a Professor of any kind I would not use such as a reason to justify anyone in believing anything that I should teach. The only criterion for that is if such teaching is in harmony with the word of God. And I most certainly have never claimed to be inspired of God and receiving revelations from Him. Any who makes claims of inspiration and revelation today are not telling the truth.

Then you say:

“It is no wonder the Church as a whole is struggling -- with people who display Christ in the manner represented by Saffold's so-called intellect. I wonder if he is related to the leadership I mentioned under the thread - Another one bites the dust!”

The church of Christ, since its beginning on the day of Pentecost in A. D. 33 has been “struggling” in a warfare for the precious souls of men against Satan who ever has been “as a roaring Lion walking about seeking whom he may devour”. (1 Peter 5:8) And for this reason we must be “sober and vigilant”. (1 Peter 5:8). This struggle began long before any pathetic soul, such as Lee Saffold most assuredly is; ever became a Christian. And that struggle will continue until our Lord returns. And it is a part of that struggle that we, including this pathetic Lee Saffold and all better, more faithful, and more intelligent Christians, must contend earnestly for the faith “once for all delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3). Because the Church is the “Pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and false teachers who approach her with anything contrary to the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11) will be met with fierce battle. But the church is not “struggling because of people like Lee Saffold”. It is that rebellious spirit known by all the saints as Satan that is the cause of this struggle. It is through his efforts to falsify and counterfeit all that is true and right in the form of false doctrine and deception that is the cause of this rebellion against God and this struggle that the Church of our Lord will ever face until our Lord returns. The disciple cannot be better than his master. The world hated our Lord and they will hate those who serve Him also. It is pathetically sinful men like Lee Saffold who have obtained mercy from Jesus Christ in obedience to the gospel of Christ that are the ones “struggling” against those who oppose our Lord. Those who have given up that struggle and have no stomach for “struggles” both in and out of the Church have lost their faith in Christ.

Then you claim that we are struggling because of “Lee Saffold’s so- called intellect”. Now, Lee Saffold has never claimed to have any kind of “so-called intellect” and he has never, until now, been accused by anyone who knows him nor anyone in this forum of being an “intellectual” in any sense. And if anyone were to claim such intellect for Him he would deny it. I am the last man on the planet that could ever be considered truly intelligent above any ordinary man. In fact, there are numerous occasions that I know of wherein I could demonstrate that Lee Saffold does not even have the intellect of the most common and ordinary man living. So just where you get the idea that I have in any way left my brethren in this forum with the impression that I am in the least bit intelligent is beyond my feeble ability to comprehend. No one has ever said that I was intelligent neither have I ever claimed to be. But despite that very profound FACT you come in here and claim that the church is struggling because of Lee Saffold’s so-called intellect”? Now, I know that I do not have a fraction of your intellectual ability but what little I do have tells me that you are not, in making such statements, using even the slightest bit of your magnificent intellectual talent and capacity. Might that be more of a problem for the church than one who, if he really were intelligent, uses his intelligence to understand God’s word? If I were intelligent, which as you say I am not, what exactly would be wrong with my using such God given ability to comprehend God’s will as revealed in His inspired word?

Brethren, please take notice just here for this is now about the third time that someone has condemned the use of “intellect” in understanding the will of God. Think about it. Is man’s intellect, which he received from God, contrary to God’s will? Was it not God who said, “come let us reason together saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as snow, and though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool.” How could God call upon man to “reason” and expect him to leave his intellect, which is man’s reasoning tool, at home? Why are you being asked to avoid the use of your reason and intellect? Is it not possible that the teachings of these men have something to fear from your use of your intelligence in “proving all things” and by it determining what is good enough to “hold on to”? And those who protest its use when it gets in the way of their doctrine appeal to it most strongly when it appears that it will further their cause, don’t they? While it is without question true that Lee Saffold has very little in the way of intelligence it is not true that he should not use his feeble intellect to respond to doctrines that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord. Especially since in doing so he will have done nothing other than what God has commanded him to do. (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11).

Then he says:

“I wonder if he is related to the leadership I mentioned under the thread - Another one bites the dust!”

I can assure you that I do not know the men of whom he speaks in that thread and most certainly I am not even remotely related to them. Though, I must admit that I have no reason to believe that it would be a bad thing to know those men or to be related to them. For we have nothing in that thread but Brother Jason’s unsubstantiated charges against them. We have in that thread nothing more than gossip filled with complaints and charges against these men with no witnesses or any other evidence to support the truthfulness of the charges leveled against these men. How do we know that those men are truly guilty as charged by Brother Jason? We have only his side of the story, do we not?

Then we are told: “Satan wants nothing more than to kill everything in its infancy.”

We are concerned in this forum with God’s will, not Satan’s. And just how our all wise Brother Jason knows the will of Satan is hard to know, now isn’t it. For the word of God was given to reveal to us God’s will. While it is true that we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices we know nothing more about his will than God’s word reveals to us. And we are nowhere taught that “Satan wants nothing more than to kill EVERYTHING in it’s infancy. In fact we know that there are some things, in their infancy, that God, and not Satan, wants to destroy. For example, the beginning of a false doctrine, in its infancy, appears harmless to us but God wants us to eliminate it in its infancy before it becomes full-grown. (Acts 20:28-32). And you can rest assured that Satan therefore would want such to survive infancy and thrive into adulthood and many false doctrines, such as Calvinism and Premillennialism, have survived unfortunately to a “ripe old age”. And unbelief is something that Satan does not want killed in it’s infancy, now does he? But our friend Jason thinks that Satan wants to “kill everything in its infancy”. This is simply not the truth. He certainly is opposed to God and sought to kill both Moses and Christ in their infancy but he allowed evil men to live to ripe old age and used them as his servants to destroy good men. An example is the old false prophet that deceived the young prophet in 1 Kings 13 into disobeying the Lord. Satan has demonstrated a willingness to desire that false prophets survive infancy and reach a ripe old age so that he can use them in order to deceive the young men. It seems that this has worked quite well in the case of our brother Jason.

Then we hear more nonsense:

“Moses & Jesus are perfect examples! What Satan cannot destroy in its infancy, he will corrupt...see the rest of Scripture as an example.”

Now, I cannot believe that our Brother Jason meant to say what he appears to be saying just here. But just in case I will point it out for you. Notce how brother Jason's logic runs in his above statememt.

Major premise: What Satan cannot destroy in its infancy, he will corrupt. Minor Premise: Moses and Jesus are perfect examples of those whom Satan could not destroy in infancy Conclusion: Therefore, Satan corrupted Moses and Jesus!

Who that calls himself a Christian can believe such nonsense? Now, I am convinced that Jason did not mean to say this exactly but because he is so adverse to the use of intellect and reasoning he has blundered into making statements that leave him open to such a charge.

Then he knows the purpose of the forum:

“ I am sure this forum was designed to discuss issues in a positive setting for the purpose of brainstorming ideas and uplifting the church and its leadership through the resource of many minds.”

Well, if this forum had only one purpose, which I am not certain is the case, I have no way of knowing if this was its sole purpose and neither does Jason for we have not been told such by anyone that I remember reading. I do not doubt however that if this forum was designed with more than one purpose that the one our Brother Jason describes could very well be one of them though I have not read from anyone who started this forum that such is the case. However, if we grant to Brother Jason that such was in fact the purpose of this forum it is obvious that we would have to use our intellect or our MINDS for this BRAINSTORMING of ideas. Though I have my doubts that the “ideas” that come merely from a bunch of brethren gathering for a “brainstorming” session could be as helpful and useful toward edifying the church as the revealed will of God in His inspired word. And the pooling of a “resource of many minds” residing in those who have been told in advance not to use them lest they be found exercising that dreaded thing called “intellect” would be a most unfruitful exercise, wouldn’t it? Especially if the object of such was to produce “ideas” for any purpose and at the same time avoid the use of intellect.

And, though we have no idea what the originators of this forum intended exactly, we hear the complaint that the forum has turned out to be something other that what it’s founders intended for it to be.

“Yet it has turned into a debate over what the word IS is, according to a handful of legalistic self-righteous self-proclaimed intellects.”

Now, Brother Jason, you have your forums mixed up a bit. It was the former President Clinton that had a problem with the meaning of the simple English word “is” which no one in this forum has EVER had the slightest trouble or disagreement over. We are perfectly united concerning the meaning of this word that it means exactly what the dictionary tells us that it means. There has never been any discussion of this issue in the least except to chide the President for pretending to not know it’s meaning. And I cannot recall anyone in this forum “Proclaiming” that they are intellectuals. Maybe you could quote whoever it was that proclaimed him or herself to be “intellects” and tell us just which thread we can find such and read the entire context to see if any such thing was ever done. I can assure you that you will not find it unless it is those who came in rejecting the gospel of Christ and denying the very Lord that bought them. Yet, in the battles with them, I do not recall that even they did such a thing as you charge some of doing in this forum. And you make a blanket general charge of “legalistic self righteousness of some imaginary self-proclaimed intellects” when no “self-proclaimed” intellects exist in this forum. And you have offered no evidence to support your claims concerning this matter, now have you? So if there are any legalistic and self- righteous self -proclaimed intellects they are not in this forum. So why do you condemn this forum with having such?

Then we are comforted concerning the condition of this forum infested with “legalistic, self-righteous, self-proclaimed intellects” as follows:

“Satan has not killed it in its infancy”.

Well now are not we all glad to hear that bit of good news? TO have someone who is able to determine our condition like this and let us know that everything is all right. Seems to me that we should be grateful for such a one who, without the slightest use of intellect whatsoever, can determine what is miserably wrong with this forum. And one who is wise enough to see that Satan some how has failed to destroy us in our infancy and thus we can only look forward to suffering the corruption that will surely come because we have survived our infancy.

And then he blames this imaginary poor condition of this forum on two people:

“ but people like Saffold and (a while back)Nelda ?sp? have turned it into a he said/she said rebuttal of nonsense.”

Even though he cannot show that anyone, least of all Nelta, or myself has corrupted this forum into any such thing. I do not doubt that on occasion we have had a bit of “he said/she said” in the debate with Nelta but I deny that the entire forum has been turned into nothing more than that. Many very interesting and fruitful discussions have occurred in this forum both before and since the discussion with Nelta and both she and Lee Saffold were involved in them to some degree.

Then he predicts that his words will be “picked apart” as follows:

“I'm sure this thread will be picked apart starting with the greeting (meant to be sarcastic) and down to every last word.”

Well, I did not know that Jason was a “prophet” or the “son of a prophet” but his prediction here was pretty close to right, don’t you think? The only thing he was wrong about was my “starting with the greeting” wherein he used our faithful Christian women as the brunt of that old worn out phrase “sistern”. Which is not a new “joke” by any means, nor the first time I have ever heard women demeaned in the name of being funny at their expense.

But we are nevertheless pleased to have been visited by a HERO to rescue and “retake” this forum back for God as if God had ever lost it! Read this deliberate arrogance for yourself brethren:

“ KUDOS to you who are able to ignore the people who represent the mentioned above...and I will join those ranks as I retake this forum back for God and His purposes. See PRAISES & PRAYER OF JABEZ...”

I suppose those of you that have not ignored the persons that he “mentioned above” will just have to get along without our hero’s “KUDOS”. I do not know how on earth you will survive without them. I suppose you will just have to get by with reading the word of God. And you will have to just be content with your faith in Christ to strengthen you and give you encouragement for if you read any of those things that Brother Jason would like for you to ignore you will not get his “KUDOS”. And we all know that would be devastating now don’t we?

As for my house we look for the praise of God and not men. No, other praise is of any value. For men have been known to praise one another and live to receive praise from one another but the praise that comes from God alone they do not seek.

Then we see that Brother Jason has come to save this forum and “take it back for God” for he says:

“I will join those ranks as I retake this forum back for God and His purposes.”

Notice he says, “AS I RETAKE THIS FORUM BACK FOR GOD”

This forum has never, for one single moment been lost to God. And it has always been dedicated to his word and therefore His will and his purposes. Brother Jason just does not like the fact that we cannot just teach and avoid having our teachings scrutinized and examined according to the command of God that we are to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good”. And I notice that he does not, in his valiant effort to “take the forum back for God and his purpose” recommend the WORD OF GOD to do this. Instead all he can do at the outset of his magnificent campaign is to lead us into “brainstorming sessions” where we are required to leave our “brains” or “intellect” at home. And by this means he hopes that we can come up with some “new ideas” for the edification of the church and the leaders in the church. It sounds as if he thinks the old notion of returning to the word of God and following it is not sufficient for this purpose.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Jason,

As one of the "originals" on this discussion forum, as well as a close friend of the one who started it, the Honorable Duane Schwengel,I can tell you that this forum was created for debate. Debate concerning trends and problems within the Christian Church/Church of Christ.

I'm sure that if you look back in the archives, especially the oldest ones, you will find threads there that will probably give you the vapors, so be careful. Debate is not a dirty word. Jesus did it as well as Paul and others.

As for Lee, I may not agree with everything he says, and I may not particularly like the way he said it, but if you will take the time to read what he says, and we all agree that he gives us all plenty of that, you may discover something, or at least see things from a different perspective than you had before, whether you agree with it or not. I have found that Lee usually causes me to think, and, if for nothing else, I appreciate him for that. BTW, Lee has been on this forum almost as long as I have, so before you start reclaiming something you never had, talk to those of us that got it started.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

I decided to humor Saffold by reading and responding; more to give him more fodder I'm sure.

My Bad! My Bad! Guess I just didn't see the eternal significance in DEBATING 1 Hezekia.(intended sarcastically but I'm sure you'll find it necessary to tell me that that is NOT a real book in the Bible)

If this thread is a norm/result of the purpose of this forum, this may be my final look at this site. It is sad that I have only received one response to "how God is at work" in the thread PRAISES.... Imagine what the church would be if a fraction of the time was spent winning one lost soul to Christ as opposed to picking apart my response. Furthermore, I CHALLENGE you to write as much in the threads stressing encouragement & edification than you do in the threads where you spend most of you time picking apart what people say in the name of "Iron sharpening Iron". I can guarantee you that I would read every word of such a thread based on edifying & encouraging.

Guess I'll stick more to worship, witnessing, and living out faith (the purpose of a Christian according to the Word).

I will not return to this specific thread to see how you have justified yourself - but anxiously await you in the threads that serve to encourage & edify.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Brother Jason:

You have said:

“I decided to humor Saffold by reading and responding; more to give him more fodder I'm sure.”

I am delighted to know that our brother Jason has found it useful, for whatever purpose to “humor” me. Humor is surely a great relief of tensions among those who are not in agreement. However, it has been my experience that any humor other than that which arises naturally from deliberate efforts to see the truly laughable occurrences that are the inevitable by product of mutual exchange, conflict and contrasting ideas and comments is less than useful. It does seem however that our Brother means in this place to imply that he is “humoring” me, not to relieve any perceived tension between brothers but rather much like one humors an old man. One who has apparently lost his senses or suffering from some debilitating disease and is incapable of understanding the common and ordinary conversation of the more youthful members of the family who love but “pity” him. He is therefore acting in this forum as if he is in a nursing home. However, his earlier post was complaining that the “old man” was using too much “intellect”. Now, we cannot have it both ways. Either you do not want us to use our intellect or you do. Is it possible that you do not want us to use our intellect so that you can run around “humoring” us as if we have no mental capacity or capability to understand your more “progressive” ideas without receiving any opposition? Or is it that we are using our feeble intellects and you cannot deal with it therefore you must at least make it appear that you are humoring us since it is glaringly apparent that you cannot answer us.

Then you say:

“My Bad! My Bad! Guess I just didn't see the eternal significance in DEBATING 1 Hezekia.(intended sarcastically but I'm sure you'll find it necessary to tell me that that is NOT a real book in the Bible)”

Now here we have such a feeble attempt at sarcasm that our Brother must inform us that he is being sarcastic. For the best sarcasm is that which is so successful that one does not need to point out that he is being sarcastic. Indeed it is true that no such book as “hezekia” is found in the word of God. And all the false doctrines, creeds and commandments of men, which we have been opposing in this forum,if they are to be found in any place it would be in just such an imaginary book. For they are assuredly not found in the word of GOd.

But that debating is scriptural you should have never had any doubt. For we are told, “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). This term “contend” is a translation of the Greek term “epagonizomai (ep-ag-o-nid’-zom-ahee) which means to “earnestly contend for”.

This word is from a combination of two Greek words. The preposition “epi” which in reference to position means “on, at, by, before, or against” and the Greek term agonizomai {ag-o-nid'-zom- ahee} which was used in reference to Greek competitive games and anytime when one was speaking of a conflict or a fight, even a common “brawl”. It is the word from which we get our English word for "agony". ( AGONY: Etymology: Middle English agonie, from Late Latin agonia, from Greek agOnia struggle, anguish, from agOn gathering, contest for a prize, from agein to lead, celebrate -- more at AGENT Date: 14th century. The word has the following meanings:1 a : intense pain of mind or body : ANGUISH, TORTURE b : the struggle that precedes death 2 : a violent struggle or contest 3 : a strong sudden display (as of joy or delight) : OUTBURST synonym see DISTRESS.)

The Greek term is translated three times in the New Testament as “strive”. And three times it is translated “fight” and one time it is translated “labor fervently”. It means to enter a contest such as contend in the gymnastic games and to contend or fight with adversaries and is metaphorically used to contend or struggle with difficulties and dangers. And in reference to all these above things it means to labor or do them with a “strenuous zeal”! How can anyone read the commandment of God that we are to contend, strive, fight, struggle, and EARNESTLY with a strenuous zeal for the faith once delivered to the saints and thereafter conclude that he did not know the “eternal significance of debating”? How can one conclude that he did not know the eternal significance of contending against those who oppose this precious faith that was delivered to us from the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven? (Hebrews 2:3,4). Paul warned the elders at Ephesus of the impending arrival of “ravening wolves” who would enter in “not sparing the flock” and that even among themselves men would arise speaking “perverse things to draw away disciples after them". And this warning was urgent and Paul gave the solution by saying, “ and now brethren I commend you to God and the WORD OF HIS GRACE which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified". (Acts 20:28-32). The beloved apostle John, who was considered by many as the apostle of LOVE had the strongest aversion to false doctrine and spoke often harshly about those who taught it. He said, “whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the father and the son. If any come to you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into thy house neither bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed is a partake of his evil deeds." (2 John 9-11).

If one is not willing to “fight” he is not likely to succeed in “finishing the course” or “keep the faith”. Listen to Paul, who, with the exception of our Lord, was possibly the greatest controversialist among those who ever held the Christian faith. He says “I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith:”

Those who hope to “keep the faith” had best understand that they must “contend earnestly" for it and “fight a good fight”. And those who become “shipwrecked” concerning the faith will be those who just drifted along whichever way the various and sundry storm tossed waves of doctrine cast them. It will be those who refuse to struggle and fight against every “wind of doctrine” that are therefore easily blown up on the rocks!

SO brethren understand the eternal significance of debate or contending for the faith. Your very soul may depend upon it. For Paul again urges, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.”

Then we are told:

“If this thread is a norm/result of the purpose of this forum, this may be my final look at this site.”

Well, I suppose that we should be greatly stressed that our Brother Jason will make this his “final look” at this site. How quickly our “hero” has forsaken his “noble” intent to “win this forum back for God”! It only shows the emptiness of his words. Clouds without water which threaten to rain but simply blow away with the next gentle breeze! Idle words filled with boasting but empty of any bearing, purpose, or substance.

Then Brother Jason is shedding big “alligator tears” over the lack of response to his thread which he initiated. I suppose that we should apologize for not paying any attention to it. But it could be that others just have not had time to notice it since they are currently involved in “controversies” in other threads or they are busy doing their jobs and paying attention to their daily lives or the tread that he initiated was of little interest to them. But he complains thus:

“It is sad that I have only received one response to "how God is at work" in the thread PRAISES.... Imagine what the church would be if a fraction of the time was spent winning one lost soul to Christ as opposed to picking apart my response.”

Threads such, as the one you started does not show much promise in terms of “converting one soul to Christ”. I have, however read of at least seven souls that were converted to Christ as a result of this forum and it was the extremely controversial and hotly debated threads that produced this result. What does that tell you? I have not read about anyone being converted to Christ by threads like the one initiated by our Brother Jason complaining about another “youth director” having “bitten the dust”. In fact, I know of not one single person that has been converted by such complaining and unsubstantiated charges against the Brethren in congregations that we do not know anything about. I would not expect anyone would be encouraged to become a Christian by reading such unjustified “whining”.

Then I am given a challenge:

“ Furthermore, I CHALLENGE you to write as much in the threads stressing encouragement & edification than you do in the threads where you spend most of you time picking apart what people say in the name of "Iron sharpening Iron". I can guarantee you that I would read every word of such a thread based on edifying & encouraging.”

Now, this is a good suggestion and one that I will most assuredly attempt to do. This is the best suggestion I have received from our Brother Jason. However, if he thinks that this would prevent controversy he must not understand how offensive the truth can be to those who despise it. In fact I cannot think of any truth that is not offensive to someone. If one says he believes in God he is subject to entering into a controversy with either an atheist or at the least an agnostic which we have seen a few times in this forum. So, the assumption that the Christian faith can be believed and followed without controversy is surely based upon a failure to know the nature of Christianity and the evil forces that it opposes.

But, Brother Jason will just “stick to worship” as he says:

“Guess I'll stick more to worship, witnessing, and living out faith (the purpose of a Christian according to the Word).”

Well, I hope and pray that you will “stick” to worship. I cannot however imagine just how you can be a witness of the resurrection of Christ. We are not eyewitnesses of any of the facts of the gospel. We believe upon the testimony of those who were actual, genuine, eyewitnesses of His resurrection. I sincerely hope that you will indeed be active in “living out faith” and I pray that it will be THE FAITH that you live out as opposed to faith in some false teaching or system that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. If you do actually live out THE FAITH you will be met with fierce controversy. For Satan cannot bear for anyone to do that. And if you think that he will just leave you alone to walk in faith and avoid any attempts whatsoever to oppose you in it you have a delusional concept of the reality of the opposing forces, which are constantly arrayed against one another in this world.

If you have enlisted into the Lord’s service and you wish to walk with him let me advise you to, “Put on the whole armor of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” (Eph. 6:11). For he will surely come quickly to use them against you. But whatever you do please do not walk naively down the straight and narrow path with the assumption that you have no need for the “whole armor of God” on the assumption that you can avoid all conflict and walk that path without meeting the opposition forces of our arch enemy Satan. Whose primary aim is to keep you from walking that way. If you think that you can walk out into the street where the "devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour" and not even contemplate the possibility that you might have some occasion to be in conflict with that lion you are in far greater danger than those who go out wearing the armor of God prepare to fight the evil one.

Let us know who is our real enemy:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

We should know the tools of our warfare:

“Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.” (Eph. 6:11-17).

But do not delude yourself into thinking that we are not engaged in warfare over the salvation of the souls of men. Neither delude yourself into thinking that you can avoid this conflict by “sticking to worship” and "living out the Christian faith”. You are a part of this great battle and the only choice you have is whether you will serve in the Lord’s Army or join the ranks of those serving Satan. But whether you will be involved in controversy is not an option that either side of this great conflict is willing to grant to you. It is best, my Brother, that you put on the whole armor of God and prepare for the inevitable battles which one must face in order to “live out the faith”. But do not wonder around this battlefield dazed and deluded into thinking that there is no battle raging and that though it is raging fiercely you can just close your eyes and it will all go away like a bad dream. Such foolishness on the battlefield has cost the lives of many of the weak that had no stomach for the fight. If you plan to live out THE FAITH you must, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” (1 Cor. 16:13). The word “quit” is from the Greek term “andridzomai” (an-drid’-zom-ahee) which means to “make a man of or to make brave” It means to “show oneself to be a man”, to be brave.” It is derived from the word, “aner” (an’-ayr) which with reference to sex denotes a “male or a husband or a betrothed or future husband”. And in reference to age it is used “to distinguish an adult man from a boy” and is also used generically of both men and women in the sense of masculine strength. But the verse under our consideration is one that commands all Christians to be brave and strong like a man and stand firm and fast in the faith. And anyone who expects to just “stick to worship” and live out the faith without having any struggle or controversy or contending for the faith is surely deluded about the nature of “living out the faith” once delivered to the saints. For such cannot be done by anyone unwilling to contend for it.

Then you tell me that there is no need for me to respond to your remarks inasmuch as you have no intention of reading such a response as follows:

“I will not return to this specific thread to see how you have justified yourself - but anxiously await you in the threads that serve to encourage & edify.”

Then of course it seems that you say this in order to prevent my writing a response by forewarning me that you will not read what I write. But you are again mistakenly assuming that I am writing solely for your benefit. You may not read it but others may and it is my hope and prayer that they can see how foolish it is to pretend that this great battle between God and Satan over our souls can be simply ignored by those of us who serve the Lord in faith. So, while I do not expect you to read it, I do expect others to possibly be influenced by this response. But, if not, I have done my duty and my hands are clean of the blood of any man who ignores these warnings given by God in His inspired word. But, I am gratified to know that you “anxiously await” me in the threads that serve to “encourage and edify”. Though I must admit that I cannot imagine that you are really that “anxious” about it. This could be another gross exaggeration such as the one wherein you claimed to be “taking this forum back for God” while immediately thereafter you state that you may leave the forum entirely by saying that this” may be my final look at this site”. Now how am I to honestly believe that you are truly “anxiously” waiting for me to write something that is edifying and encouraging when you have said that this may be your final look at this site? Could this contradiction be caused by your admitted aversion to using intellect in these discussions?

I sincerely hope this is not your “final look at this site” and I will take your good advice and attempt on occasion to write something that is designed specifically to encourage and edify. But I emphatically deny that there is a lack of encouragement and edification within a fierce and vigorously debated subject upon which we are seeking to determine just what is the truth of God’s word on a subject. For nothing is more edifying than the truth and nothing more destructive of the faith than lies, deceptions, and error. Thus any discussion that helps others to derive the truth and avoid lies, deceptions, and error is surely edifying and encouraging to those who love the truth as it is in Christ our Lord.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Lee,

If Jason says he wants to humor you, that doesn't mean he thinks you are like an old man in a nursing home whose intellect is failing. The word 'humor' does not conote or denote the concept of 'old man' or senility. Why do you think Jason is trying to 'have it both ways?' If he says he is humoring you, that doesn't mean he is implying that you are an old man who is senile. I'm not sure if your method of arguing is 'slippery slope' or not, but it sure seems to fit the 'straw man' paradigm. You were the one who came up with the old man scenario, not Jason.

Here's an idea. Instead of building staw men and sliding them down a slipery slope, why don't you just respond to the ideas an author is trying to express? Picking apart every word just wastes bandwidth.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

“Lee, If Jason says he wants to humor you, that doesn't mean he thinks you are like an old man in a nursing home whose intellect is failing.”

You are correct in noticing that one cannot tell when one is reading from those who do not know the English language and the meaning of words just what they intended to say. But it is very clear to all who understand English that the word “humor” has various uses only one of which is to express the idea of something that is funny or laughable. There is another usage, which is the usage expressed by Brother Jason in his sentence to which I responded. This word can be used as an intransitive verb meaning the same as “to sooth or content by indulgence” much like one would sooth or content a senile old man in a nursing home. Notice the following definition of the word by Webster’s dictionary. 2humor: Function: transitive verb Inflected Form (s): hu·mored; hu·mor·ing 1 : to soothe or content by indulgence 2 : to adapt oneself to synonym Indulge

To indulge means to “yield to the desire of” and this is the way in which Brother Jason used the term. By using this term as an intransitive verb it thereby expressed the idea that he was merely “adapting himself to my desires” and seeking to “sooth and content” me by means of "indulgence” much like one does with senile old men.

And the fact that he had earlier complained of the use of the intellect caused me to reply with these words:

“It does seem however that our Brother means in this place to imply that he is “humoring” me, not to relieve any perceived tension between brothers but rather much like one humors an old man. One who has apparently lost his senses or suffering from some debilitating disease and is incapable of understanding the common and ordinary conversation of the more youthful members of the family who love but “pity” him.”

Notice that I said, “it does seem however”. This means that I was stating that this is the way it appeared to me. That was the impression that his words made upon me and only he knows what he intended to say and if he wishes to clarify it I have left the door open for him to do so. But you have no way of knowing that he intended to express something different from what his use of this word as an intransitive verb actually means. Note also that I said, “that he is humoring me, not to relieve tension between brothers but MUCH LIKE one humors an old man”. I did not say that he intended to actually say that I was an “old senile man” but rather that by expressing himself with the use of this word in the intransitive sense that he was merely indulging me or humoring me LIKE one humors an old senile man in a nursing home. Now, with his use of this intransitive verb he most certainly could be taken in that way. And you would not have any way of proving otherwise without having Jason himself say that he did not mean to “humor” me in that sense. And until he returns to settle that matter we just will not know for sure, now will we? I could have said that he was “humoring” me the way one often humors a little child by indulging them with what they would like to hear or any number of examples. But I chose the one that is more close to the way our discussion related to his aversion to the use of intelligence had been in our previous conversations. So, I am not convinced by you that he did not use this intransitive verb “humor” to express the idea that he was indulging me. And therefore have no reason to withdraw my response to him. I am more than convinced that my response was accurate and appropriate and would be happy to give the same response to anyone else expressing such ideas in this way. If they wish to later clarify then that is fine with me but their clarification does not excuse their ignorance of proper usage when expressing themselves. One cannot say things that leave impressions that they did not intend to leave and expect those who read their words to regret their misunderstanding of them. But I have no doubt that I understood him correctly and that you have deliberately misunderstood him because you want to think that Brother Jason would not be so absurd as to say something so ridiculous. But the facts are there. He said that he was “humoring me” and that is what he meant. He was merely indulging me “LIKE “ one indulges an old man in a nursing home or a child. That is what his words as they were used meant. Now, if he expressed something other than what he intended then he should take responsibility for his words and make appropriate corrections but you cannot do that for him for you have no idea what he INTENDED TO SAY. And you have no responsibility for what he did in fact say. Simply put it is his buisness and not yours to deal with.

Then with similar ignorance you say:

“The word 'humor' does not conote or denote the concept of 'old man' or senility.”

No one said that it did. The word “humor” however when used as an intransitive verb means to sooth or content by indulgence much like one does when he indulges an old senile man or a little child. That was what I said. I said it was “much like” humoring an old man. I did not say that he meant by the word “humor” to convey, or “connote” the concept of an old man. But rather that he meant to humor me by indulgence like one humors an old man and that is definitely the meaning of the intransitive verb form of this word and thus the meaning of his use of it.

Then you say:

“ Why do you think Jason is trying to 'have it both ways?' If he says he is humoring you, that doesn't mean he is implying that you are an old man who is senile.”

I meant that in one minute he complains of the use of intelligence and the next he complains of his perception of one's lack of the use of intelligence by means of “humoring them” as one would humor an old man. I did not say that he was implying that I was an old man and anyone reading what I said justly could see it. I said very plainly that by “humoring me” in this way he was treating me LIKE one treats and old man in the nursing home. He meant to convey the idea that he was merely indulging me and I pointed out just what that implied. It implied that he was indulging me LIKE one indulges an old man. Now that statement is true to the facts and what he actually said. I do not mind that he was doing such but neither you nor he can successfully deny that he said that he was humoring me and he meant by that that he was indulging me. This is how people often treat old, senile men and little children. And I simply LIKENED his actions to behavior that would strongly illustrate the implications of what he was actually saying with such snide remarks.

Then you say:

“I'm not sure if your method of arguing is 'slippery slope' or not, but it sure seems to fit the 'straw man' paradigm. You were the one who came up with the old man scenario, not Jason. “

I am certain that you would like to make it appear that my “method of arguing” is a “slippery slope” that fits the “straw man paradigm” but you have failed yet again to prove such to be the truth. But if you ever wish to succeed at such a fallacious intent you must become more skillful. Once again I point out to you that he was, according to his own words “humoring” me. And my response was not to a straw man but to his tactic of humoring me. And my response to that statement made by HIM was that by doing so he was treating me like one would treat an old senile man in a nursing home was an appropriate and quite effective response to his statement. Thus, again you are wrong. I gave a response to his claim to be humoring me and it was Jason that built that “man” and it was my response that torn the "man built by Jason" down. Therefore it does not in the least fit the scenario that you depict of one who stands up his own argument and then tears them down, now does it?

Then you have an idea that is as ignorant as the rest of your response as follows:

“Here's an idea. Instead of building staw men and sliding them down a slipery slope, why don't you just respond to the ideas an author is trying to express? Picking apart every word just wastes bandwidth.”

Well, you have yet to prove to any thinking and reasonable person that I have built a straw man, now have you? And you have also not shown that I have neglected any of the ideas expressed by our Brother Jason. You merely make the assumption that your words should be accepted solely because you say them. Well, you know by now that I do not accept your words just because you say them and will not accept them until you make some effort to PROVE that your assertions are factual.

Then you say, but do not prove, that “picking apart every word waste bandwidth” Now, I do not know how you would prove that to be the truth. You only say that because it is your words often and the words of others like Jason that I “pick apart”. Naturally you would think that it is a waste of bandwidth to answer every word of the false doctrines that you seek to teach. But for those who love the truth it is not in the least a waste of bandwidth. What is a waste of bandwidth for one man is an excellent use of it to another. In fact, you write some pretty lengthy posts yourself but when you do so it is an excellent use of bandwidth in your opinion. Thus you have failed in your feeble attempt to convince me that my writing in this forum is a waste of bandwidth.

Be that as it may, I see no problem with wasting bandwidth even if that were the case. I will write whatever I please to write and you can think whatever you like to think about it. If it is wasting bandwidth to you then so be it. Just what do you think you can do to stop me from “wasting bandwidth”? The answer to that is NOTHING. Every time I see false doctrine and deception and I have time to respond I will “waste” as much bandwidth as I please. And you can whine and cry about it all that you want but that is the way it will be and there is just nothing in this world that you or anyone else can do about it. It is that simple Brother Link.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I don't understand why you take the time to respond to some of these messages? From what I saw in this thread, it seems to only prove the point being made in their minds. Just an observation from the perspective of one who only looks around once in a while.

Scott

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

Scott:

You have said:

"Mr. Saffold, I don't understand why you take the time to respond to some of these messages? From what I saw in this thread, it seems to only prove the point being made in their minds. Just an observation from the perspective of one who only looks around once in a while."

I am glad that you "look around once an a while" and hope that you will continue to do so. Your question is an excellent one and one that I have asked myself several times. And I have not always had a good answer to it. WHile it does at times seem that I should merely ignore much of what is said to me I believe that I "take the time to respond" for the sake of those who "lurk" that may, at least in my mind, need some response to help them through the subject under discussion. For they often do not see these matters as do those who are posting. It is far easier for them to be objective. In fact, there have been several "lurkers" who have written e-mails to inform me that they have decided to obey the gospel by repenting of their sins and confessing Christ and being baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) because of these discussions that I have had with with several in this forum on that subject. It is those honest souls that we never hear from that keeps me going and cause me to answer many things that I would normally ignore if I were only dealing with my own "feelings" about the matter.

I do appreciate your comments however for they do show that much of what is said to me is undeserving of a response and you certainly may be right that I should ignore much of it.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

Scott

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001