E Lee Saffold

Sorry for misspelling your name, I too would be sensitive of such.

From your previous post “What has happened to those who never knew Christ” wasn’t the total of my question. “Knew” has been added. Some “knew” of the Christ and anticipated his coming and even “saw” it from afar, but died before hand. Yet, they were never baptized. This is my question, where do they stand?

BTW, I don’t appreciate your implications in your last paragraph, they are very uncalled for. Sort of like trying to put yourself up on a soap box to be higher and look down on someone.

All comments welcome, this questioned just started somewhere else and it was requested to start a specific thread.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

Answers

Mr. C:

You have said:

“Sorry for misspelling your name, I too would be sensitive of such.”

I do not mind that you did not spell my name right and was not in the least bit sensitive to it. As I stated to you it was only a simple administrative matter because I would not want someone who actually bears the good name of “STAFFORD” to be unjustly responsible for anything that I say in this forum. Names have a purpose and when they are not correct it leaves room for misidentification. As I stated you can call me anything you like but I will make sure that others know the facts.

Then you say:

“From your previous post “What has happened to those who never knew Christ” wasn’t the total of my question. “Knew” has been added. Some “knew” of the Christ and anticipated his coming and even “saw” it from afar, but died before hand. Yet, they were never baptized. This is my question, where do they stand?”

But your original question in the previous thread was:

““If water baptizism "washes away sin" is true, then, what happens to those who never knew the Christ, about him (maybe lived in the America’s) or died before he came?”

In your original question you asked about those who “ maybe lived in the America’s” and those who “never knew the Christ”. Anyone reading this can see why I am asking you to clarify. Do mean those who lived in the “America’s” before Christ died on the cross or those who lived there afterward but had not heard the gospel? Are you asking if those who lived before Christ were required to hear and obey the gospel in baptism before it was preached? You see your questions are beginning to “tip your hand” and we will deal with them when your true hand is visible for all to see. Thus my comments concerning your lack of courage to openly affirm your position concerning these matters. SO we will continue to ask for clarifications until you show your true face. Then we will deal with your “questions” once all can understand the motives that lie behind them. And I am not moved by criticisms of the approach that I am taking in responding to your deliberate attempts to hide who you are and the doctrines that you would like to teach. I could care less if anyone even of my brethren here like what I have said to you. I wait to see if you will finally be honest and forthrightly affirm your true position and have the courage to defend it.

Since I have said a few things about this matter in the other thread I will post it here so that those who respond can see your original question and my initial response to it. However I would like for you to clarify just whom you are talking about in particular. Are you talking about those who lived under a different covenant than the New Covenant? Are you talking about those who lived under a covenant with God that did not require hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ and hence did not require baptism? Or are you talking about those who lived after Christ came and established the New Covenant, which does require baptism and have not heard the gospel?

Second I want to make it clear that God will judge all men and not E. Lee Saffold. All I can do is preach the word of God and do as God commands me to do. And the gospel that we are required to preach requires the hearing of it (Romans 10:17) belief in the Christ of it (John 3:16) repentance of all sins (Acts 3:19) Confession of Christ (Romans 10:10 and baptism for the remission of sins that we might be saved. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Thus what God will do is up to God. What God has revealed in His word is for us to know and teach. Now We are told, “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” (2 Thess. 1:7- 10).

And we are also told, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30,31).

Now, until we know exactly who you are talking about in particular and which covenant they lived under prior to the coming of Christ and the establishment of His covenant and what was required of them by God under whatever covenant they live your question cannot be accurately answered. So do define for us just whom you are asking about and we will search the scriptures and see if God has told us anything about their “fate” or what happened to them. If God’s word has not revealed these things to us we would not be able to give you an answer. For we live by God’s word, which is the Old and New Testaments for there are no other words inspired of God in existence but these. And if the answer cannot be found there then we would despair of ever knowing it. Nor would we need to know it since God would in that case have withheld this information from us. Though I am convinced that the word of God may have revealed some things about your question depending upon what it is that you are asking. For that reason I will reserve comment on those things until you clarify your question more specifically.

But for those who would like to join this discussion I now quote the post to which you refer from the other thread so that they can understand what we are talking about.

“Mr. C.: You have said:

“I apologize for butting in at the middle.”

There is no apology necessary though you have somewhat asked a question that would lead us away from the subject of this thread. And I do ask that if you wish to consider it seriously that we start a new thread to discuss what God will do with those who have never known Christ. For in this thread we are talking about those who have heard the gospel of Christ and have faith in him.

Then you say: “I haven’t thoroughly read each post, however this question is to, I believe to Stafford’s comment, about baptism and it being required “to be saved” and “being condemned” if your not baptized.”

It is clear from your question that you have not read each post. And that is fine. I will answer the parts of it that are related and will speak briefly to the points that are not related with a suggestion that we take the unrelated portion of your question to a new thread. I would hope that such is amendable to you. And just a simple “administrative” matter, my name is SAFFOLD not “STAFFORD”. It is ok to call me anything you wish but I do not want anyone by another name to get the blame for my feeble comments in this forum. I hope you understand.

Now concerning your question:

You have asked:

“If water baptizism "washes away sin" is true, then, what happens to those who never knew the Christ, about him (maybe lived in the America’s) or died before he came?”

Your question has two parts. The first part is “if water baptism washes away sins” and the second part is “then what happens to those who never knew about Christ.” First let me clarify something which I have stated many times in this forum. Water baptism alone without faith in Christ, repentance of our sins, and confession of Christ as the Son of God cannot take away any sins. And it is the Blood of Christ that actually washes our sins away (Rev. 1:5). But the scriptures teach that this blood cleanses us when we are baptized in response to the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3; 26, 27; Romans 6:3-6; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26; Col. 2:11,12). Thus it is all accomplished by obedience in response to faith in Christ (Heb. 5:8,9). Thus we are cleansed by the blood of Christ through faith in the operation of God which takes place when our faith leads us to repent of our sins (Acts 3; 19; confess Christ (Rom. 10; 10; and submit to immersion in the name of Christ (Col. 2:11,12). It is therefore when we are baptized that God’s operation of removing our sins from us takes place (Col. 2:11,12) and it is after our baptism into Christ (Gal 3:26,27) that we rise to “walk a new life” (Romans 6:3-6, 17). In response to the first part of your question please allow me to remind you that we are talking about what the inspired word of God says about this matter. It is God’s word that says, “arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling upon the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16). E. Lee Saffold is not the one who said this but the inspired Ananias who was sent to Saul to tell him what he MUST do. This command to be immersed in water to have his sins washed away was a command that came from Christ through Ananias to Saul of Tarsus. Thus there is no “IF” about the matter. At the point of baptism is when our sins are removed from our souls and for that reasons Ananias using the metaphor of the cleansing received when one baths said “arise and be baptized and was away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). He is making it quite clear to Saul that his sins will be removed by the blood of Christ WHEN HE IS BAPTISED. And therefore there is not doubt about the matter unless on wants to deny what is plainly stated by the very word of God. Then to the second part of your question, Let me state that this part of your question is quite off of the subject that we are discussing. You are asking what “happens to those who never knew about Christ”. Now in this question you are asking what happens to those who never knew the gospel of Christ and never “hear” of him and therefore never had any faith in him at all. And I am fairly certain that have some idea of where you would like to go with this matter. And if you would like to discuss that subject with me be bold enough to state your position and debate it with me openly. Nevertheless, I will answer this question for now in connection with the subject of this thread concerning the present discussion concerning baptism. As I have stated above baptism without faith n Christ will not save anyone. And according to the Scriptures no one will be saved outside of Christ and we are baptized INTO CHRIST (Gal. 3:26,27) therefore faith in Christ saves us when that faith leads us to obey him in baptism. (Acts 2:38; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46) and here are some Scriptures that teach it. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). There is no salvation IN ANY OTHER than Christ. And there is not any other name under heaven given among men whether in America, Africa, or any other part of the world that is under heaven. No man will be saved without Jesus Christ. Then we are told “I am the way, the truth, and the life NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME” (John 14:6). Therefore one must hear and obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). The first part of your question involves the matter of obeying the gospel of Christ for it is in our baptism into Christ Gal. 3:26, 27) that we obey the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 4:16-18; Romans 6:3-6,17). And the second part of your question involves the matter of hearing the gospel of Christ so that one might be able to obey it. And this is what the scriptures have to say about that matter. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:13-17). Remember that men at any time or place, including America, are not “LOST” because they have not heard the gospel. They are “LOST” because we have sinned against God. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23). And, “For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). Thus it is through the “foolishness of preaching” the gospel of Christ that men are saved from sin (1 Cor. 1:18-25; Romans 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). But it is sin, and not the lack of hearing the gospel that is the reason man is lost. TO illustrate, if one falls in the water and there is no one around to through him a life ring and rescue him and his life is lost one would not say that his life was lost because he did not have a life ring to save him. We would easily see that he was lost because he fell into violent water and could not swim. You can rest assured that no one will be “saved” because they DID NOT receive the life ring designed to save them. If they do not have the “Life Ring” of the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16; Romans 10:13-17) they will not be saved. But if they are lost it is because they have fallen into SIN AGAINST GOD. For that reason the gospel must be preached to everyone in the world to save them from sin. But some will not hear the gospel because they have had no chance to hear it or because they have heard it and refused to believe it and obey it. But the scriptures tell us that those who do not obey the gospel will be lost or punished for their sins. For it is the gospel that is designed to save them (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Now, you may not like that and you may think it is unfair in some way but that is the truth whether you like it or not. But you will not judge God my friend. He will judge you and every man living. It is wise that you prepare for that Judgement instead of trying to determine what God is going to do with people who you cannot do anything about regardless of what God has chosen to “do with them” as you say.

I am sure, from your question that you would like to get into a discussion about “what has happened to those who never knew Christ. And I will be happy to join you in such a discussion in another thread dedicated solely to that issue. And if you wish to discuss it with me all you need do is clearly state the position that you take on that matter and we will discuss it. But if you are unwilling to make any affirmations that you are willing to defend then it will be obvious to all that you do not have the courage to engage in the defense of your position on this matter. If you have no position on it then fine but I do not think that is the case. We shall see, in your response if you are a truthful man or if you will try to hide behind deception. I am asking you to come out into the open. We will see if you are willing to do so.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold”

Then you say:

“BTW, I don’t appreciate your implications in your last paragraph, they are very uncalled for.”

Mr. C. I am not writing to gain your “appreciation” of any of my “implications” in my responses to you. And I am convinced that the comments that I made in my last paragraph were very much called for by your vagueness in asking your questions. It seems to me that you are hiding your true position on these issues because you have no will to let them openly see the “light of day” and be examined fairly in the light of God’s word in an open and fair discussion. Now, if it turns out that you are not veiling you true intent then I will be more than willing to apologize for my last paragraph. But I am convinced by what appears to be a deliberate vagueness on your part that you have not the courage of your convictions about this subject because you appear to be hiding them. We have had other people come into this forum with this approach and we learned latter that they were in fact seeking to teach some pernicious false doctrines. Those who hold to the truth have no need to be vague and evasive. Therefore, I am convinced that my comments in the last paragraph of my previous post in the previous thread is justified and will offer no apology for it until I am convinced that you have not been deliberately vague and evasive. For now I am convinced that you have been deliberately vague and evasive therefore my comments stand as I have stated them and nothing short of genuine openness on your part will persuade me to withdraw them. And you need not think that I will change my mind even if everyone in this forum disagrees with me for I am not writing to please any of them either.

Then you say that my above comments are:

“Sort of like trying to put yourself up on a soap box to be higher and look down on someone.”

No, Mr. C, I am not looking down on you in the least. I am looking right straight at you. And when the truth comes out about your true position that you are seeking to set yourself up to affirm becomes clear to all it will be obvious why I am making these comments.

Then you say: “All comments welcome, this questioned just started somewhere else and it was requested to start a specific thread.”

Yes, brethren, all comments are welcome. I am the one asked that this question be asked in a specific thread so that it would not be discussed in a thread found in the archives that is a year old. I do not want to allow anyone to HIDE in the archives concerning these matters.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

It is obviously not your goal to follow in Jesus' footsteps Mr. Saffold. The arrogance and superiority that ooze from your previous post would necessarily offend the entity you profess to follow. Even in the Catholic version of the Bible, Jesus was most humble.

The question as I (and anyone else that cared to be reasonable in their interpretations) understood it was whether or not people not exposed to Christianity in their life time is/was destined to die with no chance of entering heaven.

It shouldn't take a novella to answer that question...

The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "believe in me and be saved" there is no mention of water. Baptism is symbolic and not a determinant of salvation. Religions that place the power of salvation in the water grant power to the water and take it away from God.

While you claim you aren'tlooking down on others here the tone of your postings say something entirely different. That isn't to be debtated...that's the way your postings "read".

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Mr. Isabo:

You have said:

“It is obviously not your goal to follow in Jesus' footsteps Mr. Saffold.”

Nothing has been said or demonstrated in my last post concerning what my “goals” are. But there is little doubt that it is my intent to follow Christ for it is I that have been advocating that we follow Christ in baptism. For the scriptures say, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” (Matt. 3:16). Those who follow Christ will follow him into baptism especially since it was Christ who commanded it (Matt. 28:19,20) and it was Christ who connected it with salvation by saying, “He that believeth and it baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). SO those of you interested in “walking in the steps of Jesus Christ, the Son of God should follow him in submitting to baptism and obey him by doing so. For we are told by Christ, “not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that the will of my father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) And we are certain that bap0tism for the remission of sins is the will of God (Acts 2: 38). Even John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) and the Jews that reject his baptism rejected the council of God against themselves by not being baptized of John. “But these rejected the council of God against themselves by not “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” (Luke 7:30). And if those who rejected the baptism of John were rejecting the council of God against themselves how much more are those today who reject the baptism commanded by Christ for our salvation (Mark 16:16) rejecting the council of God against themselves.

Then you complain as follows:

“ The arrogance and superiority that ooze from your previous post would necessarily offend the entity you profess to follow.”

I profess to follow Christ, the Son of God. And he is the Son of God, not some mere “entity” which I Follow. And I do not merely “profess to follow him. I follow him beginning with following by faith into the waters of Baptism that He commanded me to submit to. (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5). And I also follow him in my manner of responding to those who seek to teach that which is not the truth, even when they seek to use tricks and deception in doing so. Notice the words of the “humble” Son of God in responding to the “questions” asked with the intent to “trick” him as follows:

“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

Now, I cannot answer anyone with the great wisdom that Christ demonstrated here and do not claim to be able to do such. But I want you to notice just here the attitude that Christ displayed toward these men. Because he perceived their wickedness in their secretly planning to “entangle him in his talk” by first acknowledging that he taught the way of God in truth and at the same time asking a question that they thought was impossible for him to answer. And thus they would be able to negate the truth that he taught because he could not answer them without appearing to be against Caesar or appearing to support Caesar. Notice that he called them, in his humility, HYPOCRITES. Thus it is obvious that there are two types of humility. There is the false humility displayed by these Pharisees when they pretended to humbly admit that he taught the way of God in truth when they did not sincerely believe any such thing but were setting him up to entangle him. And there is the true humility of Christ our Lord who spoke truthfully when he called them hypocrites and then answered their question with wisdom that they could not withstand. Thus humility does not prevent one from calling someone a hypocrite, now does it? And neither does it prevent one from pointing out when another person is seeking to be deceptive by not showing there true intentions in asking certain questions. Thus, I do not subscribe in the least to your completely false perception of what is genuine humility. I have the highest respect for the genuine humility of our Lord who spoke the truth regardless and did not try to deliberately impress anyone with his “sense of humility”.

From this we learn that questions are not always sincere request for information. Sometimes they are craftily designed to entangle others in their words. Sometimes they have no greater purpose than to “tempt” others into a situation to make the truth appear as a lie or vice versa. Notice again, “Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,” (Matt. 22:35). Now Christ our Lord was the greatest controversialist of all time. He was able to discern when men sought to trap him, tempt him and entangle him in his words and he did not hesitate in His controversies to speak the truth even when it meant calling others Hypocrites” for they were hypocrites in these actions. And he was not averse to casting the respected moneychangers out of the temple and saying, “it is written that my house shall be called a house of prayer but ye have made it a Den of thieves.”

And it was the “humble” Christ, who said the following words, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.” (John 8:37-50). Now our Humble Lord Jesus called these men children of the Devil and liars. And he did so in language that you and others would consider inconsistent with humility. And he claimed to have the truth in a manner that you and others would consider down right “arrogant”. You and others like you insist that humility demands the speaking of words always in gentle tones and with the avoidance of any “dogmatism” by which you mean the avoidance of “certainty” for being certain that you speak the truth is “arrogant”. That who follow Christ will make sure that what they teach is true according to the doctrine of Christ. And they will speak it with a sense of sincerity and certainty with no hesitation caused by fear that someone might perceive of them as being arrogant and lacking in humility! Why even the Lord’s audience was so angered by his words that they said that he “hath a devil”! I guess he did not “come across” as being very “humble” now did he?

Then you say:

“ Even in the Catholic version of the Bible, Jesus was most humble.”

Now you will not convince me of much by referring to the “Catholic Version” of the scriptures. For I do not accept that version as being accurate. Yet if you will read the verses that I quoted from the New Testament above even in the Catholic version you would find that the Lord’s perception of humility was far different from yours.

Then you say: “The question as I (and anyone else that cared to be reasonable in their interpretations) understood it was whether or not people not exposed to Christianity in their life time is/was destined to die with no chance of entering heaven. It shouldn't take a novella to answer that question...”

The question I understand, though there are details of it that I wanted to clarify before answering. Yet, the simplicity of the question does not prevent the hypocritical attempts to set up an “entanglement” as the Lord’s detractors sought to do. And anyone involved in controversies concerning the faith once for all delivered to the saints should follow the Lord’s way whenever they perceive such to be the case and respond appropriately and not hastily and certainly not with the naivete that you display. You will see when the facts are clear that I have a good reason for what I am doing but whether you ever see it or not I will do it just this way.

Then you say: “ The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "believe in me and be saved" there is no mention of water.” Perhaps you would like to show us the passage to which you refer that has Jesus Christ himself saying in the exact words that you put in quotation marks “believe in me and be saved”? And you say that there is no mention in the scriptures of “water”. Now there is abundant reference to water in connection with our salvation in the scriptures. Notice the following from the inspired apostle Peter, “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (! Peter 3:20,21). Here we have a definite connection between baptism in water and our salvation. It says that this baptism “doeth also now save us’. So if the absence of water convinces you of anything what would the presence of it do for you? Probably nothing if your mind is arrogantly made up before you consider all of the evidence in the case. And look at the conversion of the Eunuch by Phillip in Acts 8:35-40. Phillip preached unto him Jesus and this is all that the record says that he preached unto the Ethiopian Eunuch. And as a result when they came to a certain WATER the eunuch said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized. And Phillip baptized him in water in response to the preaching of Jesus Christ. A clear connection between water baptism and the proper response to the preaching of the gospel of Christ is seen in the account of the conversion of the Eunuch. It also shows that water baptism was a part of the gospel preached by the inspired preacher Phillip. SO there is clear quite a lot water mentioned in connection with the preaching of the gospel which is the Power of God to save (Rom. 1:16). Thus, you assertion that there is NO MENTION of water is patently false.

That baptism is essential to the remission of sins is clear from the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost when three thousands souls were baptized and they were being saved by doing so. “Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:37-47). Baptism is for the remission of sins and no one can be saved until his sins are remitted. And I recommend the reading of several other passages that connect water our being born again. “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5). “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, [and] hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;” (Titus 3:3-5). And again we find water, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22). And the church, which is the body of the saved (Acts 2:47) is spoken of as having been cleansed by water as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph. 5:25,26). Yes, my friend, there is much MENTION made in the scriptures of WATER. But you neglected to MENTION them now didn’t you?

Then you say but do not even attempt to prove the following:

“ Baptism is symbolic and not a determinant of salvation.”

Just where does the word of God teach that baptism is “symbolic”? Are we to believe this solely because you say it? Give us the passage of scripture that says, “baptism is symbolic”. And notice the difference between you and Jesus Christ our Lord on this matter.

You say that baptism is “NOT A DETERMINATE OF SALVATION”

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16)

Now those who love Jesus Christ and seek to obey him will believe him instead of you.

And again notice the difference between you and the inspired apostle Peter:

You say, “baptism is “NOT A DETERMINATE OF SALVATION”

But the inspired Peter says, “BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US”. (1 Peter 3:21)

Now I will believe the inspired apostle Peter instead of the uninspired Mr. Isado.

Then you say:

“Religions that place the power of salvation in the water grant power to the water and take it away from God.”

First of all, no one has ever said that the power of salvation is “in the water”. But the scriptures teach water is a part of the gospel, as I have shown above concerning the preaching of the gospel by Phillip, (Acts 8:35-40). And that it is when we are obedient to our Lord in baptism that he then applied the blood of Christ to our lives and removes our sins from our souls. (Col 2:11,12; Romans 6:3-6,17). Thus the power of God to save is the gospel (Rom. 1:16) and water is a part of that gospel (John 3; 3-5; Acts 8:35-40) and when we are baptized the God by HIS POWER removes our sins from our souls. Thus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9).

Now it was Christ who commanded baptism and connected it with out salvation. (Mark 16:16) and if you do not like His religion that is your prerogative and you would not be the first nor will you be the last to reject it. But there is water in the plan of salvation by God’s design and no one can take anything away from God.

Then you say:

“While you claim you aren'tlooking down on others here the tone of your postings say something entirely different.”

Now that is your opinion and you are welcome to it but I am looking straight at Mr. C and not looking down upon him in the least.

Then you say:

“That isn't to be debtated...that's the way your postings "read".”

Now we all know that any thing that has not been proven to be the true and is debatable, Mr. Isato. And just because this is the way my postings read to you is no justification to draw the conclusion that this is the only way they can be read, now is it? Just because you see my postings in this light does not mean that it is necessarily the way it reads to everyone else in this forum. So you have not proven your false assertion that I am looking down on anyone in this forum. And that which is unproven is indeed debatable.

But I can see what you appear to mean by this comment. It seems that you want us to just accept what you say about these things without debating it with you. I know that would be more convenient but it would not be profitable in the least, now would it? And as I have said, your opinion of how it “reads” does not concern me in the least. Whereas any proof that you might give to establish the truthfulness of your assertions would interest me very much indeed.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Mr Saffold,

Now you can read my "heart" and equated me with the Pharisees?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Mr. C:

You have said:

"Now you can read my "heart" and equated me with the Pharisees?"

I have not read your heart, Mr. C, I have read your words and what seems to me to be evasive tactics demonstrated by your vague questions and unwillingness to take a position concerning the very questions that you ask. And, this particular tactic was one that was used by the Pharisees as I have shown in my last post. If you are not using this tactic then it would be easy for you to simply clarify your questions and state your position concerning them. And then everything will be out in the open and you will not appear, at least to me, to be seeking the same result that the pharisees sought in the way in which they asked what appeared on the surface to be harmless questions but were in truth merely efforts to entramp and deceive others and entangle Jesus.

Now I have asked you several times to do this but you have not yet done so. Until you do, it will continue to appear to me that you are behaving as the pharasees did with their questions. And my perception of this is not based upon what is in your heart for I cannot know all that is in your heart. I have read your words and this is the perception that I have concerning them. For "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh".

I know that you would like very much for it to appear that you are being sorely mistreated. But I have done nothing more than ask you to clarify and state clearly your position on this matter. And I have stated my reasons for this request and the reading of your words and not the "reading of your heart" is the actual cause of it.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

What is vague and hidden about :

"Some “knew” of the Christ and anticipated his coming and even “saw” it from afar, but died before hand. Yet, they were never baptized. This is my question, where do they stand?

How much more specific can I be?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Mr. C;

You have asked:

“What is vague and hidden about : "Some “knew” of the Christ and anticipated his coming and even “saw” it from afar, but died before hand. Yet, they were never baptized. This is my question, where do they stand?”

I have made that clear to you now at least twice and this will now be the third time. My request for clarification concerning what was vague to me was in the following words, which I quote from my first post in this thread:

“In your original question you asked about those who “ maybe lived in the America’s” and those who “never knew the Christ”. Anyone reading this can see why I am asking you to clarify. Do mean those who lived in the “America’s” before Christ died on the cross or those who lived there afterward but had not heard the gospel? Are you asking if those who lived before Christ were required to hear and obey the gospel in baptism before it was preached?”

And again in the same post I asked you to clarify the following:

“However I would like for you to clarify just whom you are talking about in particular. Are you talking about those who lived under a different covenant than the New Covenant? Are you talking about those who lived under a covenant with God that did not require hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ and hence did not require baptism? Or are you talking about those who lived after Christ came and established the New Covenant, which does require baptism and have not heard the gospel?”

And yet again I asked you:

“Now, until we know exactly who you are talking about in particular and which covenant they lived under prior to the coming of Christ and the establishment of His covenant and what was required of them by God under whatever covenant they live your question cannot be accurately answered. So do define for us just whom you are asking about and we will search the scriptures and see if God has told us anything about their “fate” or what happened to them.”

Thus, you are without excuse for your pretense of not knowing what is vague about your question when we have now requested, once in the original thread and in this one, specific clarifications from you.

And concerning what is hidden. I have told you in my last post that you have hidden your position concerning the very question that you have asked of us. This is definitely something that I have now asked you about more than once and it remains hidden. So you have no excuse for your pretense of not hiding anything. We shall see if you will remain in hidden shadows or if you will make your way out into the light.

Then you say:

“How much more specific can I be?”

You already know from the above listed request that I have made of you concerning clarifications just exactly how “much more specific you can be”? And yet you come in here and pretend that you had not idea about how to be more specific. Doing such shows that you did nothing more than ignore our request for specific information concerning your question. And then come back and ask us how could you be more specific! Ha! Ridiculous!

And we specifically asked your position concerning this matter and you still ignore us and then return to ask us how can you be more “specific”! You have been given several ways that you could be more specific but you continue to ignore them while at the same time you ask how can you be more specific as if no one had previously informed you concerning this matter. You have now been asked three times for specific information and clarifications. And if you cannot find in those questions a way to be more specific then you may be deliberately incapable of being specific or you may very well be as I suspect hiding the true intent and purpose of your question. But we will see now won’t we?

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

It's Ms. Isabo...that at the risk of being taken less seriously by revealing my gender.

Interesting that you would mention the Pharisees. Pompous, overblown, self worshiping people who spoke eloquently in order to enjoy their own voices. Reminiscent of much that I've read here.

It is also interesting that you quote scripture in order to support your every argument. Anyone with the ability to read can pull a snippet of scripture from the Bible to support any point they'd like to make. The Bible is not to be taken in part but as a whole. Having read the Bible in its entirety it is my opinion that God would not exclude a soul because he/she did not have the opportunity to be dipped in H2O.

Since we are sensitive about having our names spelled correctly here I have to assume that "Now we all know that any thing that has not been proven to be the true and is debatable, Mr. Isato" was unintentional? Yes, time consuming as it was....I read the whole diatribe.

I stumbled onto this forum and after a very little bit of clicking around I found this thread. Do you think that was coincidence Ms. Saffold? I do not. I think you are using your religious beliefs to bully others. Something my God, my Christ would never condone.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Ms. Isabo:

You have said:

“It's Ms. Isabo...that at the risk of being taken less seriously by revealing my gender.”

You have no one to justly blame concerning my failure to acknowledge your gender but yourself. You did not even bother to tell us your name or you gender but you admit having hidden it from us out of fear that you would be taken less seriously. Therefore I do not apologize for not acknowledging your gender. If you wanted it to be recognized it was your responsibility to make it clear so that all would be aware of it. And it is my general procedure when I refer to someone’s name to use as much information that I have. And in order to be as respectful as possible I at least bother to assume a gender, if they are hiding it from us, that would not unjustly place them in any disadvantage. Or cause them to think that I am trying to arrange for their words to be taken less seriously by assuming a feminine gender. Thus I assume a male gender and correct it if a woman wishes to accept the truth that her words can be considered seriously regardless of her gender and is willing to make her gender known. Therefore it is your own perception that prevented any of us from knowing of your gender. It was your own lack of confidence in your gender and not my rejection of it that has caused this problem. And it is simply unjust of you to imply that I am in any way responsible for not knowing your correct gender. If anything you should apologize for assuming that none of us would take your words seriously simply because of your gender.

The truth is that I have never used another persons gender against them or to denigrate their arguments as all of the women, who post here can, if they wish, attest. I can assure you that no one single female who has written in this forum can quote a single word from me that shows where I have shown disrespect toward them on the basis of their gender. And I do not now have any less respect for your arguments because of your gender. But you can rest assured that your “playing of the gender card” will not help your argument in the least. For your argument will stand or fall based upon whether it is in harmony with the doctrine of Christ found in the word of God. So far your argument has failed that test miserably, even when I thought you were a man!

I will also note that you have not provided the scripture to support your statement as I had asked of you.

Then you say:

“Interesting that you would mention the Pharisees. Pompous, overblown, self worshiping people who spoke eloquently in order to enjoy their own voices. Reminiscent of much that I've read here.”

Well I do not know if what you say is true or not. You have not given any examples that we can examine and compare to the statements made by the Pharisees, now have you?

Then you say:

“It is also interesting that you quote scripture in order to support your every argument”

Yes it is indeed interesting, isn’t it? And it is equally interesting that you do not quote scripture to support yours, now isn’t it? In fact, I cannot think of a better way to teach the doctrine of Christ than to have a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we believe, practice and teach, can you?

But then you say:

“Anyone with the ability to read can pull a snippet of scripture from the Bible to support any point they'd like to make.”

I deny that this is true. You obviously cannot do it to support your doctrine for if you could you would have done so by giving us a scripture to support your unfounded assertion in your previous post that I asked you to show us in the scriptures. It is true that scriptures can be taken out of their context and often made to appear to support something that they do not support. But if you wish to make that assertion concerning any of the passages that I have quoted you should be able to show from the context that the application that I have made of them are out of harmony with the context from which I quoted them. This is the very reason that I give the exact reference so that anyone who can read will be able to look up those verses for themselves and examine the context and correct me if I am wrong. But you do not bother to do this and you know the reason why? You cannot show that I have taken a single one of those passages out of Context, now can you? And as far as quoting scripture is concerned I will tell you that our Lord was also fond of doing just that. In his confrontation with Satan he not only quoted scripture but he also corrected Satan’s misuse of the scripture. But he did not just tell Satan “anyone can quote scripture”. No, not any doctrine can be truly supported by the scriptures. And though it is true that some quote scripture to support false doctrine if a saint wishes to correct those errors they had better be able to not only quote scripture but also examine the context surrounding scriptures quoted and explain when they are being used incorrectly. This you have shown no willingness to do.

Then you say:

“ The Bible is not to be taken in part but as a whole.”

This is true and the New Testament as a whole teaches without doubt that we must obey the Lord in baptism in order to obtain the remission of our sins and hence the salvation of our souls. (Mark 16:16; Heb. 5:8,9; John 3:3-5; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 8:9- 40; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; Romans 6:3-6,17; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22). Baptism is mentioned 127 times in the New Testament and in every account we have in the New Testament of persons being converted to Christ baptism is required of them all. There is not a single instance after the resurrection of Christ and the preaching of the gospel beginning on the day of Pentecost of a single person who was ever converted to Christ and thus saved from his or her sins that was not baptized. Check it for your self. You cannot find one single example of a person converted to Christ during this period that was not baptized. There is not a single one. Now that is the teaching of the word of God “as a whole”.

Then you say:

“ Having read the Bible in its entirety it is my opinion that God would not exclude a soul because he/she did not have the opportunity to be dipped in H2O.”

Well we all know that “H2O” is another way of saying water. And you have not dealt with nor even attempted to reply to the arguments from that Bible that you have read “in it its entirety” that I gave in detail in my last post concerning what the word of God says about water (h2o) now have you? But listen to this, Christ is the author of eternal salvation to “all them that obey him” ( Heb. 5:8,9) and you can rest assured that NONE are going to heaven that disobey him. For he said, “not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21). And it was Jesus Christ, who said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). And as I told you in the last post the inspired apostle Peter said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21). Now in my previous post I quoted that verse and its immediate context in detail but you have simply ignored it. No one is going to be saved that deliberately ignores the Lords commands and is deliberately disobedient to him. And if Christ commanded us to be dipped into “H2O” for the remission of our sins, which he did (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38), and we refuse to obey his commands we will be lost for that deliberate unfaithful disobedience. Now, inasmuch as you have ignored my arguments from the previous post I will simply tell you to look them over and answer them if you can. But it gives the teaching of the truth concerning baptism and if you think it is in error I would be happy to hear your explanation of those passages of scripture in their context and will listen to your efforts to correct my error. But simply telling me that you do not like the fact that I quote scripture to support all of my arguments is not enough to convince me that they are wrong in the least, now is it?

Then you say:

“Since we are sensitive about having our names spelled correctly here I have to assume that "Now we all know that any thing that has not been proven to be the true and is debatable, Mr. Isato" was unintentional?”

No one was being “sensitive” about “names” in this thread. Mr. C thought that I was but I have denied that I was being sensitive and even told him that he could call me anything that he wants. But that I would make sure that everyone knew the actual facts so that none with the name “STAFFORD” would be accused of having said anything that I have actually said. And you too are welcome to call me any name that you like but if you use what appears to me to be a good name belonging to someone else I will clarify the matter. Names have a purpose and spelling them accurately is not something that we should have to be “sensitive about” but rather something that we are all too happy to correct. I will refer to you as Ms Isabo and would have done so from the beginning if you had been honest enough to provide us with accurate and truthful information concerning yourself and your gender. Your failure to do so is your responsibility and I owe no apologies for no having referred to you incorrectly concerning your gender. That was your own doing caused by your own insecurities about the perceived value of a woman’s comments. You can bear that burden for I surely have no responsibility for such nonsense. I do, however, apologize for the misspelling of you name. It was unintentional.

Then you say:

“ Yes, time consuming as it was....I read the whole diatribe.”

Well that is the way it goes Ms. Isabo, if you want to read something you must be willing to sacrifice the time to do it. There is nothing anyone can do about that now is there? And you are welcome to your opinion that it was a diatribe and I must tell you that such a designation for it is not original and neither does it bother me in the least.

You will be comforted, I am sure, to know that you are not alone in reading these “diatribes” for some have even read all of them for the past year. And you are welcome to read as many as you like and respond to them.

Then you say:

“I stumbled onto this forum and after a very little bit of clicking around I found this thread. Do you think that was coincidence Ms. Saffold? I do not.”

Now I suppose that you deliberately are referring to me as “Ms Saffold” even though you have good reasons to know that I am not a female. And this is quite different from the mistake that I made concerning your gender. For I have not hidden the fact that I am a man as you deliberately hid the truth about your gender, now have I? But you were too cowardly to admit that you were a woman and thereby cause us to make the error concerning your gender. Then you complain about it when we make that error and your response is to deliberately refer to me by a gender that you know is not my true gender. Your hypocrisy in doing this is shameful indeed.

Usually when someone is “stumbling around” whatever things they “bump into” are coincidental. It certainly is without any “purpose” of their own that is achieved when they are “stumbling” along. Now, you do not think that your “stumbling” onto this forum was a “coincidence” but you do not tell us just what you think it was, now do you? Is this the place where you are seeking to imply that God lead you here stumbling along for some purpose? May be, I could not know for sure and neither could you. But if he did is it not interesting that you stumbled up on E. Lee Saffold who has made arguments from the scriptures concerning baptism that you cannot answer? Might he not be telling you to stop and listen to this “mean man” that is quoting scripture to support every argument that he makes? Could be that God would like for you to learn something that you do not know. Or, as I think you would like it better this way, He could have sent you “stumbling into old E. Lee Saffold to set him straight on a few things. That could be. But if that is his purpose in leading you stumbling head long into E. Lee Saffold you had better get busy doing what he sent you to do, now shouldn’t you? And you should not give up until you accomplish the purpose for which you were sent stumbling into this “mean man”. For if this is the case it is a mission from God that you are on and you should take it very seriously! And God knows that E. Lee Saffold is not going to be persuaded by anything but the truth of God’s word and anyone that wishes to convince him of any errors must be able to give him a “thus saith the Lord”. So why are you ignoring the arguments that I have made from the scriptures and instead complaining that I even use the scriptures! You should be ashamed if you really think that God sent you stumbling in here to correct me and you have done nothing more than complain about the fact that I have used the scriptures, which are God’s very own words, to support every argument that I make!

Then you say:

“I think you are using your religious beliefs to bully others.”

Well, that is a nice assertion as far as assertions go but where is the proof of it? If you can prove that such is the truth I would like to hear it because I know that such is not the intent of my heart. But since you are able to “read hearts” and know other hearts better than the individuals themselves maybe you should just prove to me that such is the intention of my heart. Can you do that? I would really like to see just how you determine that such is the intent of my heart.

“ Something my God, my Christ would never condone.”

You sound as if God and Christ belong to you. There is only one true God and we all belong to Him and He belongs to no one. “We are his people and the sheep of His pasture”. We serve Him he does not serve us! And there is no doubt that God does not condone “bullying” but he does command “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and he expects us to be “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17). And this is what I am doing and no one bringing a doctrine, which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ, is going to have an easy time of teaching it so long as I have opportunity to speak against it. For this is my duty before God as a Christian. But I have not bullied anyone. I have, however, strongly challenged the false doctrines taught by some. And I have challenged your assertions as well, just as you thought it was necessary for you to challenge some of the things that I have said. Why is it ok when you do such things and it is “bullying” when I respond to your assertions that were not according to the truth of God’s word?

Now, one thing that we know that God does not condone is false doctrine and he does not expect his faithful saints to condone it either. And you will not find me knowingly condoning any such doctrines in any place.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

1 Timothy 4:10 1 Timothy 4 1 Timothy 4:9-11 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (no mention of water)

1 John 5:13 1 John 5 1 John 5:12-14 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (no mention of water)

While Baptism by water is frequently mentioned in the Bible salvation by belief without mention of water is also a recurrent theme in the Bible. Please re-read my first post and note that I did not say that Baptism by water isn't mentioned in the ENTIRE Bible. My point was and is that salvation is mentioned without association with Baptism....which is correct.

I don't "play cards" M. Saffold. Your gender isn't indicated in your signature any more than mine is. I see that you protest in spite of that being the case when the incorrect gender is associated with your name. Frankly, the issue isn't worth the bandwidth it's taken to argue. I will say that I have found that anonymity is prudent on the net. I shouldn't have to tell you since you are so well versed in the Internet and it's offerings that there are more weirdoes per capita on the Internet then there are in real time and I avoid their company and their notice at every opportunity. I do not know you and yours and would be naive to trust you with my real identity.

You obviously put more stock in strict Biblical reference than I. I am predisposed to drawing conclusions and opinions from all of my studies and experiences. It is your right to regurgitate verse as it is mine to draw conclusions from my well of information however deep or shallow it may be.

I believe that religious beliefs and one's behavior according to those beliefs is very personal. My God may not be your's or my neighbor's as is demonstrated every day worldwide. We all have our own beliefs and some of us have the courage and fortitude to follow those beliefs in the face of adversity while others do not.

Finally, our faith is tested every day M. Saffold. What if? What if C were Jesus and was testing our ability to calmly and rationally answer a simple query? Do you think he would approve of this lengthy, heated exchange? I do not. I think Jesus would be disappointed in our inability to answer such a basic question with brevity and coherence....

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Ms Isabo:

You have said:

“1 Timothy 4:10 1 Timothy 4 1 Timothy 4:9-11 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (no mention of water)”

There is also no mention of repentance but we are told elsewhere when we are taking the “BIBLE AS A WHOLE” which you correctly point out that we should do, “Repent ye therefore and be converted that you sins might be blotted out…” (Acts 3:19). There is no mention of faith in that verse yet we know that faith is also required not don’t we? So if you were following your own suggestion to take the Bible as a whole you would see that even though the verse that you quote does not mention repentance of sins as essential to remission of sins. You would have to admit that repentance is necessary because the Bible teaches elsewhere in other verses than the one you have quoted that repentance is essential. And in like manner, even though water is not mentioned in the one verse that you quote it is mentioned in 127 verses that you deliberately ignore. Thus if you were taking the Bible as a whole you would find that we are told to believe (John 3:16) repent (Acts 3:19; 2:38; 17:30) confess Christ (Rom. 10:10) and be immersed into water (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3-6; 17;Acts 8:35-40; 1 Peter 3; 21; Eph. 5; 25,26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3; 26,27).

Then you say again:

“1 John 5:13 1 John 5 1 John 5:12-14 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (no mention of water)”

There is also no mention of repentance or of confessing Christ but we are told in other passages in the scriptures that we must repent. (Acts 3:19). Now are we to conclude as you have here concerning the absence of water in this particular verse, that repentance is not necessary to our obtaining remission of our sins. Are we to also conclude that since confessing Christ is not mentioned in this particular verse that confessing him is not essential to salvation? Are we to draw such conclusions even though we know that we are told elsewhere, when taking the Bible as a whole, “ For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:10). You see, Ms. Isabo, you are not following your own suggestion to take the Bible as a whole, now are you. I have stated that the Bible teaches that we must believe in order to be saved and quoted several such verses that show that faith is essential to salvation but there is not one single verse of Scripture in the Bible that says we are saved by “faith alone”. In fact there is a verse that makes it abundantly clear that faith alone cannot justify us. It reads thus: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:17-24). SO you see Ms. Isabo, according to even the rest of the Bible a man is not justified by FAITH ONLY. But the verses that you quote only mention faith. And they do not mention anything else mentioned in the “Bible as a whole” that is essential to our salvation such as repenting of our sins before God (Acts 3:19) and confess Christ before men (Rom. 10:10; Matt. 10:33,34) for the remission of sins. And Christ said he that “believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16). So by taking your advice and reading all that the bible says as a whole concerning what is essential to the remission of our sins and the salvation of our souls we find that faith alone just will not be sufficient, now don’t we? Now that is the teaching of the Bible as a whole, Ms. Isabo. Your error here is in your failure to follow your own good advice that we should take what the Bible as a whole teaches about the matter.

Then you say:

“And again I remind you of the principle that you yourself have correctly advocated of taking the Bible as a whole. While Baptism by water is frequently mentioned in the Bible salvation by belief without mention of water is also a recurrent theme in the Bible. Please re-read my first post and note that I did not say that Baptism by water isn't mentioned in the ENTIRE Bible. My point was and is that salvation is mentioned without association with Baptism....which is correct.”

Well as I have shown above if you were to take your own advice you would find that the fact that salvation is mentioned without association with baptism is not sufficient reason to ignore the rest of the Bible. Where salvation is mentioned in association with baptism and no mention of faith in verses like 1 Peter 3:21 and acts 2:38 and others. But the fact that the verses you quote do not mention water. And some of the verses that I have quoted do not mention faith prove only that when we take them all together we come up with all that the word of God requires of us in order to be saved. Faith is essential. (John 3:16). Repentance is essential (Acts 2; 38) confession of Christ is essential (Romans 20:10; Matt. 10:33,34) and baptism is also essential (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6,17; Acts 22:16). And faith alone without the other things mentioned in the rest of the Bible will not justify anyone. “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24).

Then you say:

“I don't "play cards" M. Saffold.”

You played the gender card, Ms. Isabo and it did not work out too well for you did it?

Then you say:

“Your gender isn't indicated in your signature any more than mine is.”

But you knew prior to your last post exactly what my Gender was, didn’t you? For in your very first words to me you said, “It is obviously not your goal to follow in Jesus' footsteps Mr. Saffold.” Now it seemed to be quite clear to you in your very first response to me that I was a man. Therefore it was evident to you in some way, now wasn’t it? It was evident because I made no effort to hide my true identity now did I? But you on the other hand deliberately hid your true identity to which I do not object for I understand your stated reasons for doing so. You had no confidence in your gender and thought of it as a liability in discussions. But then when someone fails to recognize your gender because you are deliberately hiding it and then you blame them for failing to recognize it you are being dishonest and hypocritical. And I have no real problem if you insist after knowing the facts that you refuse to recognize my gender. That is your prerogative. But I only pointed out your deliberately doing so as evidence of your severe hypocrisy.

Then you say:

“ I see that you protest in spite of that being the case when the incorrect gender is associated with your name. Frankly, the issue isn't worth the bandwidth it's taken to argue.”

I did not protest you doing this in the least. And I have no real problem if you insist after knowing the facts to refuse to recognize my gender. That is your prerogative. But I only pointed out your deliberately doing so as evidence of your severe hypocrisy.

“ I will say that I have found that anonymity is prudent on the net. I shouldn't have to tell you since you are so well versed in the Internet and it's offerings that there are more weirdoes per capita on the Internet then there are in real time and I avoid their company and their notice at every opportunity. I do not know you and yours and would be naive to trust you with my real identity.”

Well as I have pointed out I have no issue with your anonymity. But if you are going to be anonymous do not complain if someone, because of your anonymity fails to recognize your gender. That comes with the decision to be anonymous. And your attempt to hold me responsible for not getting your gender right when you by your own conscious choice created the circumstances that caused the error.

Then you say: “You obviously put more stock in strict Biblical reference than I.”

Obviously!

Then you say:

“ I am predisposed to drawing conclusions and opinions from all of my studies and experiences.”

This does appear to be the case and it explains just how you have come to conclusions that are contrary to the teaching of God’s word.

Then you say:

“It is your right to regurgitate verse as it is mine to draw conclusions from my well of information however deep or shallow it may be.”

Indeed, Ms. Isabo, you have every right to be as wrong as you choose to be.

Then you say:

“I believe that religious beliefs and one's behavior according to those beliefs is very personal.”

So what? There is only “one faith” (Eph. 4:4) and Christians hold that faith and contend for it (Jude 3) and if you do not keep that one faith and follow it you will be lost no matter how “religious” you am “personally” be.

Then you say:

“ My God may not be your's or my neighbor's as is demonstrated every day worldwide.”

How many times must you be told that there is only one God and he belongs to no one? The only people who can “possess god’s” are those who have created their own God out of stone or gold or silver and they carry them about wherever they go. But the true God is over us all and we belong to him and we are the sheep of his pasture. He owns us. He is not different for some than he is to others. He is the same God for us all because He is the only God of all. For we are told, “One God the father of all who is above all, through all and in you all.” (Eph. 4:5). Now men have created God’s of their own but the true God is never their own but rather they are His own. “For it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves.”

Then you say:

“ We all have our own beliefs and some of us have the courage and fortitude to follow those beliefs in the face of adversity while others do not.”

Some, like you, are even able and willing to follow their own false beliefs when they know that they are false even if it means that they will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Then you say:

“Finally, our faith is tested every day M. Saffold.”

Is that supposed to be something that we do not know?

Then you asked:

“ What if? What if C were Jesus and was testing our ability to calmly and rationally answer a simple query?”

Well C is not Jesus, now is he. And if Christ were testing our ability to rationally answer a question. He would approve of what I have done thus far for I have shown from the scriptures that he did something similar in responding to those who were seeking to entrap him. I cannot go wrong in following his example, now can I? And if you think the inquiry was so simple then why have you said nothing to C in answer to his query? He did invite the rest of you to respond did he not? But you have chosen of your own free will to engage me instead. So accept the responsibility of your own choices.

“ Do you think he would approve of this lengthy, heated exchange?”

Yes I do and you are completely unable to show from the word of God that he would disapprove of it now aren’t you?

Then you say:

“I think Jesus would be disappointed in our inability to answer such a basic question with brevity and coherence....”

No one has shown any “inability”` to answer Mr. C’s question. Even Jesus himself did not give immediate answers to those who asked questions of him. Some times he even refused to answer. And I will answer Mr. C when he clarifies his position and that is the way it will be whether you like it or not. But you have not even attempted to answer him now have you? Why not? Why don’t you just give him your answer and let me answer when and how I please? In other words you could have been minding your own business and if you thought that Mr. C deserved a better response that he got from me or anyone else you could have given one now couldn’t you? SO it is clear that you are not as concerned about his receiving an answer to his simple inquiry as you pretend to be now are you?

I will answer him in my own time and in my own way and that is my business not yours. If you want him to receive some kind of answer that suits you then you provide it.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

I answered in my first post Mr. Saffold: "The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "believe in me and be saved" there is no mention of water. Baptism is symbolic and not a determinant of salvation. Religions that place the power of salvation in the water grant power to the water and take it away from God." If you were as interested in what others have to say as you are in your own thoughts you'd have recognized that as my answer to C's question.

It's taken a bit of time but I've finally come to appreciate that you are unreasonable, disinterested in the ideas and thoughts of others and completely taken with yourself. Hope that humility isn't very high on God's list of requirements to enter his kingdom...otherwise you would appear to be in a world of hurt.

An intellectual discussion is without doubt beyond your capabilities as it would be with anyone who only looks to find fault.

In the spirit of trying not to be hypocritical I'd like to leave with

Live Long and Prosper

Isabo

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Ms. Isabo:

You have said:

“I answered in my first post Mr. Saffold: "The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "believe in me and be saved" there is no mention of water.”

I asked you after your last post to tell us just where the “Bible quotes Jesus as saying “believe in me and be saved” and you have not yet given us an answer. We have shown what Jesus actually did say and gave the exact reference for all to read. He said, “He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned”. (Mark 16:16). WE have shown the connection that He made between water and the New Birth. He Said, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). But you ignore all that Jesus actually said and insist that we believe what you imagine that he said.

Then you again say what you have been asked to prove but failed:

“ Baptism is symbolic and not a determinant of salvation.”

We responded to your words above as follows but you ignored then completely:

“Just where does the word of God teach that baptism is “symbolic”? Are we to believe this solely because you say it? Give us the passage of scripture that says, “baptism is symbolic”. And notice the difference between you and Jesus Christ our Lord on this matter.

You say that baptism is “NOT A DETERMINATE OF SALVATION”

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16)

Now those who love Jesus Christ and seek to obey him will believe him instead of you.

And again notice the difference between you and the inspired apostle Peter:

You say, “baptism is “NOT A DETERMINATE OF SALVATION”

But the inspired Peter says, “BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US”. (1 Peter 3:21) Now I will believe the inspired apostle Peter instead of the uninspired Mr. Isado.”

We asked you to give us any single passage of scripture that teaches that baptism is “symbolic” but you have failed miserably to do so. We have shown several passages that connect baptism with salvation (Mark 16:16) And the remission of sins but you have completely ignored them as if they were no part of God’s word. You have had absolutely nothing to say about them in the least.

WE corrected your pathetic misrepresentation of what we have been advocating from the scriptures, which you again repeat as follows:

“Religions that place the power of salvation in the water grant power to the water and take it away from God.”

WE told you the following in response to that comment:

“First of all, no one has ever said that the power of salvation is “in the water”. But the scriptures teach water is a part of the gospel, as I have shown above concerning the preaching of the gospel by Phillip, (Acts 8:35-40). And that it is when we are obedient to our Lord in baptism that he then applied the blood of Christ to our lives and removes our sins from our souls. (Col 2:11,12; Romans 6:3- 6,17). Thus the power of God to save is the gospel (Rom. 1:16) and water is a part of that gospel (John 3; 3-5; Acts 8:35-40) and when we are baptized the God by HIS POWER removes our sins from our souls. Thus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9). Now it was Christ who commanded baptism and connected it with out salvation. (Mark 16:16) and if you do not like His religion that is your prerogative and you would not be the first nor will you be the last to reject it. But there is water in the plan of salvation by God’s design and no one can take anything away from God.”

But you ignored completely what we said about that and come back merely repeating the same misrepresentation again.

And after our taking notice of your every word and your deliberate ignoring of almost all of our words you have the absurd notion that we are the one’s that are not interested in what others have to say. A notion that you express as follows:

" If you were as interested in what others have to say as you are in your own thoughts you'd have recognized that as my answer to C's question.”

Your above words that you claim was an answer to Mr. C’s question was not even directed to Mr. C and has absolutely no application to his question at all. Notice that the post wherein you claim, falsely I might add, to have been attempting to answer Mr. C was directed to me and addressed the subject of baptism and said absolutely nothing concerning Mr. C’s question about what happens to those who have never known Christ. These were your words, which demonstrates that the truthfulness of what I have just said. This is your entire post addressed to Mr. Saffold and not Mr. C and discussing baptism and making no reference whatsoever to Mr. C’s question concerning what happened to those who never knew Christ. It is as follows:

“It is obviously not your goal to follow in Jesus' footsteps Mr. Saffold. The arrogance and superiority that ooze from your previous post would necessarily offend the entity you profess to follow. Even in the Catholic version of the Bible, Jesus was most humble. The question as I (and anyone else that cared to be reasonable in their interpretations) understood it was whether or not people not exposed to Christianity in their life time is/was destined to die with no chance of entering heaven. It shouldn't take a novella to answer that question... The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "believe in me and be saved" there is no mention of water. Baptism is symbolic and not a determinant of salvation. Religions that place the power of salvation in the water grant power to the water and take it away from God. While you claim you aren'tlooking down on others here the tone of your postings say something entirely different. That isn't to be debtated...that's the way your postings "read".”

Now, do tell us Ms. Isabo, just where have you addressed Mr. C or his question in that post? If you were paying attention to what you have said yourself. You would not have falsely claimed that you attempted to answer to Mr. C’s question in a post wherein you neither address him or his question. But instead you address me and talk about the question of baptism, which is not the subject of his question in the least.

And I cannot understand why you suggest that I have no interest in what you have to say when anyone who can read is able to see that all that I have been saying has been in response to your every word. I have not ignored a single thing that you have said. And it is obvious to anyone even casually reading our exchange that you deliberately ignore almost if not ALL that I have said to you. So, I will leave it to the judgement of our readers as to which of us is actually interested in what “others have to say”.

Then you say:

“It's taken a bit of time but I've finally come to appreciate that you are unreasonable, disinterested in the ideas and thoughts of others and completely taken with yourself.”

Well, Ms Isabo, I appreciate your expressing of your opinion of me and I will examine myself to see just how much truth there might be in your comment. And I certainly hope that you are wrong about your impression that I am “completely taken” with myself. And promise that I will take a good introspective look at myself to see if that accusation might be true. But I cannot at the moment see just how you can consider me to have been unreasonable in our exchange when I have reasoned from the scriptures concerning every argument and every single word that you have said. Now I could see that you do not agree with my reasoning but to say that I am being unreasonable without offering even one shred of evidence to support that assertion makes it difficult for me to see your point. And as I have pointed out above all that I have said to you has been in response to your every word spoken to me. On the other hand you have neglected to offer any response, reasonable or otherwise, to most of the arguments or statements that I have made to you. Thereby you have proven that it is in fact you that has no interest in what “others have to say”. SO, it is possible that a little “self examination” might be helpful to you in this regard.

Then you say:

“ Hope that humility isn't very high on God's list of requirements to enter his kingdom...otherwise you would appear to be in a world of hurt.’

Well, I believe that humility is indeed, according to God’s word, very high on God’s list of requirements to enter his kingdom. WE must have enough humility to hear his word and obey it. He commanded us to be baptized and it is nothing short of both arrogance and ignorance that prevents people from submitting to God’s will in the matter. One cannot be more arrogant that one who deliberately refuses to hear and obey God’s word as you have demonstrated in our exchange. I have shown you from God’s word numerous passages that teach that we must be baptized for the remission of our sins and to be saved. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). And you simply ignore God’s word and his commands.

I do not think that you have offered any evidence that would justify your accusation that I am not being “humble”. I do not think that you would perceive me as being very humble when I have been contradicting from the word of God the false doctrines that you have espoused concerning the purpose and necessity of baptism in God’s plan of salvation. But I must always examine myself to determine if there is any truthfulness in your claim that I am not very humble. You could be right but I would not be able to convince myself of it if I were to be depending upon the evidence that you offer to support your assertion. For thus far you have done nothing more than assert it. SO, you have not convinced me that I would be in a “world of hurt” in this matter.

Then you say:

“An intellectual discussion is without doubt beyond your capabilities as it would be with anyone who only looks to find fault.”

Well, I cannot deny that I am lacking in intelligence and thus am indeed out of my league when discussing matters with those who are genuinely blessed by our great God with an abundance of intelligence. But the finding of fault is not always condemned in the scriptures. WE are told to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good”. Now just how are we going to “prove all things” without finding fault with some of them? We are also told to “try the spirits whether they are of God for many false prophets are gone out into the world”. Now, how are we going to “prove the spirits” and detect those who are “false prophets” without “finding fault in them? Jesus told the church at Ephesus, "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” (Rev. 2:1,2). Christ praised the church at Ephesus for having found fault with those who claimed to be apostles when they were not. So the finding of fault does not prove that “intellectual discussions” are “beyond the capabilities” of those who find fault. Nor is it true that the finding of fault is always wrong, now does it? I have indeed found egregious “faults” in your words in this forum. The major one being that your assertions and not supported by evidence from the word of God. Now this is an awful fault that anyone claiming to follow Christ should ever seek to correct.

Then you say:

“In the spirit of trying not to be hypocritical I'd like to leave with Live Long and Prosper”

Well, Ms. Isado, it is too late for you to TRY not to be hypocritical when you have displayed so much hypocrisy in pretending that you are interested in what others have to say while ignoring everything that they have said. And those who are truly “humble” feel no such need to make impressions about it as you have done with this statement. And if you would quote more from the scriptures and less from sources such as “Star Treck” you would be nearer to helping others to genuinely “live long and prosper” as you say.

I do appreciate your attempt at humility and kindness but I would rather hear the truth angrily presented than a lie sweetly whispered in my ear.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Getting back to the original question: It is a a common line of reasoning for a Mormon to ask what happens to people who haven't heard about Christ. Then they try to say that the "other sheep" Jesus spoke of were Israelites that had migrated to the Americas, and Jesus had to put in an appearance here.

Now obviously the "other sheep" were the gentiles, whom Jesus personally sent Paul to gather, and others have gone as well, indeed they are still going. But one wonders, if we are to carry the Mormon argument out to its logical conclusion: Shouldn't Jesus have also appeared to the aboriginies on the Australian continent? Shouldn't we expect new scripture from them too? Not to mention all the other far-flung reaches of the globe, which are only now being reached with the good news. We should have scriptures coming out of our ears!

But such is not the case. It is we who have been entrusted in getting the good news to those people, not personal visitations by Jesus. What did He say? "Go, and make disciples from among all nations. That's what Christopher Columbus was doing when he sailed to the new world. Our history books record that he was just looking for another trade route, but his own writings show he was a devout Christian whos main desire was to bring the gospel to the people he met on his journey. His was a missionary trip. (And there is some evidence that suggests that Christian missionaries visited the New World 500 years earlier, coming by the Viking's route into Canada.)

Now God is just, and those who have not heard of Christ are judged on the basis of what knowledge they do possess of God, as Romans the first chapter plainly says. "They know about God. God himself has shown them. People cannot see that God has power which lasts for ever. They cannot see that he is really God. But ever since he made the world, he has clearly shown this by the things he made. So they cannot say, `I did not know about God.'" Indeed, many in this country who even say they are Christians and know about God, worship gods that are "made like to corruptible man."

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

E. Lee Saffold,

Good Lord man, are you not capable of replying to someone in a more humble, shorter (as pertaining to length of text) manner? Time wasting it certainly is and I for one won't be reading anymore of your long and generally boring dissertations.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

E. Lee's answers are long... but you can't accuse him of avoiding issues. I personally enjoy reading his refutations of other's not-so- well-thought-out verbiage. :-)

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Ms Kline:

You have said:

“Good Lord man, are you not capable of replying to someone in a more humble, shorter (as pertaining to length of text) manner?”

I appreciate your estimation of my writing. It is the harsh criticisms that help us the most, is it not? And as I told Ms Isabo, I will examine my heart to see if there is any truth to your accusation concerning my lack of humility. For no one can tell from your accusation if it is true since you did not bother to specify the exact words that caused you to draw your conclusion. Normally as just criticism will provide some measure of evidence to support its truthfulness. Your failure to provide such may be an indication of the possibility that you were not being critical with the intent to be helpful. But rather you were merely expressing your anger, which might exist solely, because you do not like the truth that I expressed in my “lengthy post to which you refer.

As far as my capability is concerned I can only say that I have never pretended to have any particular talent, skill or unique or even average capability as a writer. I have not claimed such since I am convinced as well as you of my poor ability in this area. If I were a more talented and skillful writer I would most likely be more concise and say things in a far more powerful and meaningful way. I am only doing the best I can with what my feeble and surely inferior ability. It is all that one can do if he cares for the truth and is set for its defense. He must fight with whatever strength that he has within him. For that very reason I am always happy to see greater lights and more talented writers stand for the truth. Unfortunately at the present it seems that Satan has the more talented and gifted ones on his side. But we never know but that some simple-minded man as myself just might one day convert a brilliant and gifted soul to Christ. And thereby contribute in a significant way to the ultimate victory which we shall see through Christ our Lord and many souls will be saved through the work of the more gifted which learned the truth from the most inferior of us. Let us pray that such just might some day be the result of my feeble attempt to stand for the truth of God’s word. I am sure that you might agree that prayer for such a simple-minded man as myself would be helpful, would it not?

Then you say:

“ Time wasting it certainly is and I for one won't be reading anymore of your long and generally boring dissertations.”

Well, I do not put much stock in claims that a discussion of the word of God, even by one who is the very least talented is a waste of time. I knew once in Alabama that a simple preacher who was not very gifted preached a protracted meeting and very few attended. In fact after two weeks of preaching his heart out only one person was converted to Christ and that person was a young teenage girl. And there was no congregation in that city. Several years later this girl married and had five sons that became faithful, talented and powerful preachers of the gospel. And thousands were brought to Christ and the humble and far inferior preacher has long since been forgotten and no one but the woman and her five sons even remember his name. You will not read any of his “brilliant dissertations for he never wrote anything that was ever considered brilliant. But you can rest assured that Jesus Christ knows him and will reward him according to his works! I thank our God for that man of feeble talents, indeed I do a so does the mother of those five preachers of the gospel and so should all of the thousands who are now serving Christ with the hope of eternal life burning in their hearts. For they never knew him and probably never will but their eternal destiny was greatly influenced by a man who was faithful and making use of his limited abilities.

This nonsense prevalent today that a preacher of the gospel is worthless unless he is always entertaining and interesting and never boring or lacking or in any way struggling is a pathetic shame. And it is a disgrace to all who pretend to know the Christ who loved such men with a great love and loves them still. I love them, all of them and I am thankful to God for their faithfulness. The very salvation of the lost in this world may depend upon them. Those preachers that are seeking some kind of “spiritual stardom” and to become noted and great men and famous for their work often become actually useless because the preaching of the truth often stands in the way of such ambitions!

But I must say that you have indeed made the right choice if you cannot bear to hear what I have to say in my post and cannot stand the boredom. You have wisely chosen to ignore them. But remember that it is entirely possible that you may also, on very rare occasions, forgo the opportunity to learn some valuable truth. Some truth that you may not hear from those who seek nothing more than to please you, entertain you, and say only what you like to hear in the way that you like for it to be presented.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Brother Robin:

Thank you for your kind comments. I am thankful to God for you and your love of truth. I enjoy our discussions and exchanges with one another and hope that they can continue in the future. Your words are indeed an encouragment to one with such limited talents seeking to do something for the cause of Christ and the truth. Thanks again for your kind, supportive and encouraging remarks. I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you and all of yours.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Lee,

Just my two cents…I love reading your posts. Your point by point refutations make the issues here very clear. You were given a GREAT compliment in this thread (though it was definitely unintentional) when it was said of you…"It is also interesting that you quote scripture in order to support your every argument." And "You obviously put more stock in strict Biblical reference than I." If only all of us could have those who are in opposition to our beliefs say that! WOW! Now…if only there were more out there like you!!

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

D. Lee:

I appreciate your comments very much. As you know I love you in Christ for the great love you have for the truth and your willingness to stand for it and support those who are standing for it. You are an inspiration to any that would believe in and obey Christ.

I am indeed thankful to God that I can call you my sister in Christ,

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I have not had time to read the many legnthy replies to your question, so forgive me if this point has already been raised.

Salvation has always been based on the work of Christ, even from the time of Adam. The writer of Hebrews states that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." What did Abraham believe? He believed in the promise. What promise? That in his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed. This is a direct reference to Messiah, for Jesus was a descendant, physically, of Abraham. Jesus was of the seed of Abraham. Abraham's faith in Christ (God's promise), whom he had not seen, was the basis of his righteousness (salvation). God's first promise of a deliverer came right after the first need for deliverance when Adam and Eve sinned. Clothing them in animal skins, which required the shedding of blood, was the first foreshadowing of the ultimate shedding of blood that would forever deal with the problem of Sin. Throughout the Old Testament the story is of individuals attaining righeousness (salvation) based on their faith in God's promise of a deliverer (Messiah) whom they had not seen. (Read the book of Hebrews, esp. chapters 11 and 12.) Old Testament believers clearly gained salvation. Did God have a different means of saving them? No. "For there is no other Name under heaven whereby men must be saved." All of Scripture is about Christ: God's preparation for His first coming (Old Testament), and God's preparation for His second coming (New Testament). We will share heaven with countless Old Testament Saints. I can't wait to meet men like Abraham, Moses, Jacob. I want to ask Jabez about his life and how God answered his prayer. Exciting.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001