I'm not sure if this will be an appropriate subject or not. If it's not, go ahead and delete it.

The preacher of a church I was going to was a very good friend of the family. While my husband was away, he came over to help us with something. He showed up with a rose and wanted me to kiss him.. Well, I put a stop to it, but it was very upsetting nonetheless. Needless to say I told my husband and have discontinued attending that church. it was just too awkward. My question is, should I tell somebody, such as his wife, about this? Or the elders? My husband wants me to keep quiet about it, so as not to damage the man's reputation. But I'm afraid it will happen again with someone else and cause them to stumble. At the same time I really don't want to destroy the preacher or the church, but he has done this to at least one other person in the past and I am concerned it will be a recurring probem and needs to be addressed.

Again, I'm sorry if this post offends anybody. I just don't really know what the right thing to do would be.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Answers

"This is one area where I must admit that the denominations have a definite advantage over our fellowship of churches. When there is a rogue preacher in our brotherhood there is no safeguard established to keep him from going on to another church and causing more damage."

Really Michael.....what's wrong with the elders of the church following up on the individual and making sure that potential congregtions know about him?? What's wrong with an add in the Standard??

Or could it be....that the elders are not ready to stand behind their decision....and/or actions....and are afraid of a liable suit??

It is so easy to accuse these days isn't it?? But when hard pressed for the evidence....how many elders would be able to substantiate what they did in a court of law without the "rumor mill" to help them out??

The bottom line is simple....if this REALLY happened to this woman....she has grounds for filing charges....pure and simple.

And secondly....what does this say about her husband who would allow such a thing to go on...unchallenged??

Oh how we all like to jump on the "bash a preacher bandwagon".... (especially other preachers).....cause it makes us feel so good about ourselves don't it??

This is a pathetic thread.

This is why I have committed myself (and my current congregation knows it)......the next time someone makes simply absolutely false statements about me for the purpose of causing me harm.....they will be hearing from my attorney.

It's the only way to deal with this kind of trash anymore.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

John....

First....you prove my point...you assume the man is guilty already. In this you provide a perfect picture of our society. For instance, you don't have to be a racist....you just have to be charged with it. This is very sad.

Second.....1 Cor. passage doesn't apply. Those were minor disputes. I don't think a blatant attempt to ruin someone's reputation is a minor dispute....do you.

Michael....you assume too much.

And Connie...well....you're just an idiot....(and I say that in Christian love).

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

No CG....it's not me who is a threat to the ministry. I think someone like yourself who does not believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be historically true is a much bigger threat to the Kingdom.

John Wilson....

Humor me....try a novel approach and assume the man is being falsely charged. The elders of the church...(who already didn't like him)....decided to side with her and he is fired. In addition....the elders tell other congregations....who tell others...who tell others....etc.

Pray tell us....what is this innocent man's course of action?? Just "consider it joy" and get a job selling insurance??

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

And John....speaking of shooting our wounded....this thread is a wonderful illustration of why we are having a hard time recruiting and maintaining men in the ministry.

Good grief....you don't have to be guilty anymore....you just have to be charged!!.....and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Like I said before...this is a pathetic tread....and I hope and pray no young men who are considering entering the ministry ever read this.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Robin....

Thanks for a reasoned response. It always amazes me on this forum.....that the ones who speak most about love....in the end....do the greatest amount of determining who is and who is not a Christian.

Anyway....as to your response....thanks for understanding my extremely valid concern.

In the same manner....I understand your concern....and would agree...that if the person is a habitual sexual offender....urgent steps need to be taken. In no way shape or form would I want to be guilty of harboring someone who has done damage to others in this way.

However....in our culture....it is simly way to easy anymore to get away with laying unfounded charges against someone. I have one preacher acquaintance who was dismissed from his congregation and the elders gave the reason...."he was mentally disturbed." Nothing....could have been further from the truth.

I've been in the ministry 20 years now and have never been dismissed. If it were to ever happen....I would at least like to have the decency of not having things "trumped up" against me. If they are legitimate concerns.....and/or...even differences of opinion....I could deal with that.

However, I could not tolerate a deliberate smear campaign. I went through something close to that in my last ministry (I simply resigned instead of fighting the smear).....and promised myself....that I would NEVER go through that again unchallenged. If necessary....I would take legal steps to clear my name.

In this culture....unless John Wilson can suggest another form of action....legal counsel could be the only way to clear someone's falsely tainted reputation.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Again Link......you assume the man is guilty. What about his protection????

No Connie...I didn't call her a liar....I simply "called her."

And CG....the passages you quote discuss personal vengeance.....not personal protection. Again CG....I want you to tell everyone here that if someone was raping your wife.....you would just stand there and say...."God bless you...and Jesus loves you." (As Robin pointed out....this is not the place for this discussion. You simply introduced it as a straw man because your argument is weak otherwise.)

Here is a great passage of Scripture that applies here. The Scripture concerns elders....but I would certainly think preachers would come under the same guidelines. The passage is 1 Timothy 5:19-20.....

"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning."

By the way...."witnesses" there is not just 2 or 3 people you have won to your side. These would be individuals who have "witnessed" the act the elder is being accused of.

This my dear forum friends....is why I don't jump on the "beat the preacher down" bandwagon.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

First of all....Robin did not bring up the "straw man" issue. He simply brought up the point this was not the place for such a discussion.

Second, since my respect for you was already extremely low because of your "low" view of Scripture....it had nowhere to go but down...which it did....when you blatantly point out you would allow your wife and/or children to be harmed. (By the way...since you claim to teach hermeneutics....you know what a "low" view of Scripture is...don't you?)

Thirdly....how does it feel to put yourself in the place of God?? I've noticed from Scripture that the only one to ever refer to someone as a hypocrite....was Jesus. The apostles never even did that. Yet....you feel yourself qualified to speak in the place of Jesus.

Fourthly....keep right on CG....because all you are doing is turning more people on this forum against you with the venom you spit out. You are simply verifying the kind of person you are and indicated in the e-mail you sent me.

Fifthly.....you have failed to show where the Scriptures say..."Don't sue.".....and as Robin pointed out....you have failed to point out where the Bible says carrying a gun in the pulpit is wrong.

This is my last response to you on this thread....since it is merely "casting pearl before swine."

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

"Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor 6 that lawsuits among believers is wrong...and yet you have said to those in your congregation that if they accused you of anything they would hear from your lawyer."

Just to clarify.....THAT IS NOT....what I said. People accuse me of things all the time....most often it is simply a misunderstanding.

I said....those who are deliberately, falsely accusing me for the purpose of liable.....(which by the way is a crime)....and people should be held responsible for crimes they commit.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

Chamoisee....

First off...I never called you a liar. I simply said....a charge is not enough to convict. I still stand by that. It's your word against his.

Unfortunately, you live in a society in which frivilous charges are brought so often....than when a serious one is brought forward....no one....takes it seriously. I'm sorry about that....I can't help that.

The bottom line is this....if this happened to my wife.....I would pursue the correct action...no matter what the reaction of other people or the community.

If this really happened to you....than I assure you....YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST....NOR WILL YOU BE THE LAST....for this man has learned that the women simply won't say anything.

Maybe...nothing will become of your bringing the case forward. Maybe you will be chastised by the community, church, etc.

But think of this.....if it happens another time to some other women....(and chances are it will)....and she decides to come forward as well....she will be walking on a foundation that you were courageous enough to lay down.

When enough women have the courage to come forward.....then...the 2 or 3 witnesses thing comes into play....and the evidence becomes such that no one can deny.

I'm simply saying......pursue the truth....and let the chips fall where they fall.

However, do not do the cowardly thing....and simply makes charges that you are unwilling to pursue.

If you are not willing to pursue the truth....then simply drop it....because it's going nowhere....and does no good.

Personally....if this did happen....I'm praying that God will give you the strength to do the courageous thing....if not for yourself....but for the others that could be endangered by this man.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

"I realize you have unresolved conflicts. Too bad you would never go to a Bill Gothard Course. He used to give a seminar on Basic Youth Conflicts. It addresses some of the things many adults never deal with, and suffer their whole lives, as do their families, friends, co- workers, and acquaintances."

Connie....you don't know me...you don't know anything...and you are still an idiot.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Oh....I do want to thank you for one thing Connie.

Thank you for giving a wonderful, living, illustration of what John Wilson and D. Lee Muse said....i.e., "this is why women should never be leaders in a church."

Thanks again!

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

OK...let me get the "new" Calvanized version of the rules of the forum straight.....

Connie....can refer to me (and E. Lee at other times)....as having "deep seated emotional problems".....but if I call it the way I see it with Connie (and people that REALLY KNOW ME...know that I simply call it the way I see it).....that is a no-no.

Hmmmmm.....seems to be I'm simply doing what the apostle Paul does a number of times in Scripture by referring to the talk of certain women as "foolish."

OK....I'll stick by Paul's rules.....rather than the "new" forum rules.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

"I have gone back in the archives and know that you did not have the best childhood. It is difficult to overcome that. I do think that Christian counsel could help you come to some understanding of how you came to be the way you are."

Now Connie I will add to my list....not only are you an idiot...but you are a sick and pathetic liar. There is no such discussion on any thread. I have never discussed my childhood....let alone my "trouble childhood".....which there was not one.

Please oh please forum.....see this woman for the foolish woman she is.....and maybe we can finally be rid of her.

If nothing else....at least call her for being a bald faced liar.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Also Connie....there is not a single thing you have "cut and paste" that gives any reference to my "trouble childhood" (as you stated).

So the assertion still stands....you purposely lied in order to discredit.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Oh Connie....Connie....Connie.....grasping at straws. You assume that because my father had a problem with alchohol....that he was a bad father. Not so at all. In fact, my wife is constantly amazed at the job he did. My dad was a good father....he was not a Christian....but he was a good man.

So....where is the dicussion of my "troubled childhood??"

Your lies continue to haunt you and no one on this forum will take you seriously...(even less so now)....that you have publicly lied in such a bald faced fashion.

And quit bringing the gun issue up....no one is impressed....it simply shows your lack of ability to intelligently discuss the issue at hand. I am a legally, permitted, concealed weapons permit holder.....I can carry it anywhere I want.....except an airplane.

Lee Saffold has never called me a liar....hmmmmm...wonder why that is??

Maybe he appreciates someone who does not purposesly misrepresent other's views.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Oh...and by the way Connie.....to further embarrass you......most of my father's problems with alchohol....developed after I left home.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

CG...the reason is very simple as to why E. Lee and myself answer Connie the way we do. Two reasons:

1) She is a liar....and needs to be exposed (as per the Scriptures). 2) It is simply a matter of "answering a fool according to their folly."

As per your comment about guns and pornography.....all that show is how "Clintonized" you have become.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

That's it Connie....play the poor little victim.....rather than confessing you blew it.

Another typical female ploy.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

"Mean spiritedness".......well there's another liberal Clintonized word....straight from "Tom Brokejaw"....and the rest of the liberal media.

Funny....I literally have guns throughout my house.....50% of which stay loaded all the time.......and yet......not a single person ever gets hurt....(and my daughter actually made it to age 22). Boy them guns sure are dangerous!!!

Now I will grant you.....they are dangerous on the numerous deer, turkey, and hog I kill every year.

And CG....you're barking up the wrong tree if you are going to call on E. Lee to "call me down" as you put it.

E. Lee knows me to be one of the most fair minded....and truth seeking indiduals that he has met.

He also knows.....I don't mince words....I call an ace and ace and a spade a spade.

I know liberals have problems dealing with that.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Some advice on dealing with Link....ignore him...it works for me.

In all fairness to CG and the Quaker (aka "Friends") position......

While I do not agree with it, I think it based on some misguided biblical interpretation.....I do respect their position on it....and admire those who can consistently follow through on it. (Those who come the closet in my opinion to being consistent are the Amish.)

Either position.....pacificsm......or my position that allows self defense....and war opposition to evil....carries with it a great number of questions and dilemas.

As someone that I admire told me one time....."Positions one takes often boils down to which set of questions one can live with."

So CG....I can understand your aversion to guns (i.e., I understand where it comes from). You must understand that there are a great number of people of faith.....who take the opposite position.

The question it comes down to for me is.....is it an essential for salvation to believe one way or the other?? I think not.

While I think it is a grave error to not be a defender of the Second Amendment.......I can respect those who take a differing view in the sense that I can still consider them a brother in Christ.

And no....I don't choose to discuss this (i.e., Second Amendment) as this has taken place previously on the forum.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

CG......

I believe the Scriptures teach the essentiality of immersion...i.e., it is not just "important"....it is essential.

For a discussion of my beliefs on this, I simply defer to E. Lee's discussion the "baptism debate" thread as our views would be nearly identical.

Now if God chooses to save other people outside of His clearly revealed Scriptures.....I'll leave that up to Him.....I will not make an eternal judgment.

But for what I believe the Scriptures to teach....and what the Gospel entails.....in order to preach Jesus....I must preach the baptism taught by Jesus and His apostles (see Acts 8 and the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch to see that preaching Jesus means preaching baptism as well).

What others choose to do is between them and God.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Yeah....check this out Mark.

In Louisville, KY today.....one middle schooler stabbled another middle schooler in school with a pocket knife. At this point, the child is in critical condition.

CG....where is the media stampede?? Where is the call of knife registration?? Where is the call for licensing of knifes?? Where is the call for a total ban on knives....or at least a 7 day waiting period??

When will you and the other liberal acknowledge the fact that there is something far deeper that is wrong with our society?? When will you realize this is a heart issue and not a gun issue??

Fifty years ago guns were more readily available than the are today.....and yet......this current problem was not present.

If you want to argue guns from a pacifists position....fine. But your social argument against guns is pale and weak.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

By the way Chammy.......this forum has never been evangelistic in purpose. It is a battlefield of ideas.

Just a little point of info.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

This is one area where I must admit that the denominations have a definite advantage over our fellowship of churches. When there is a rogue preacher in our brotherhood there is no safeguard established to keep him from going on to another church and causing more damage.

I would say in your particular situation you are under an ethical obligation to inform the elders of the church. This type of behavior is evidence of a much deeper problem and will only increase and someone will eventually be very hurt. Its up to you to do your part.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Mrs. Chamoisee:

You have said:

“I'm not sure if this will be an appropriate subject or not. If it's not, go ahead and delete it.”

Let me say to you that I find that your post is appropriate and take absolutely no offense and hope sincerely that what I will say to you will be helpful.

“The preacher of a church I was going to was a very good friend of the family.”

This man obviously was pretending to be a “very good friend” to the family while in reality, according to what you relate to us that occurred, he was working as an agent of Satan to destroy your family. If he did this thing he was never a genuine “friend of the family” and should not be treated as such.

Then you tell us what happened:

While my husband was away, he came over to help us with something. He showed up with a rose and wanted me to kiss him.. Well, I put a stop to it, but it was very upsetting nonetheless. Needless to say I told my husband and have discontinued attending that church it was just too awkward.”

Now, just here I am happy to note that you had the good sense to “tell your husband”. There may be women out there who would not even have the wisdom or the courage to do even this for fear of what their husbands might do or out of some strange concern over this man’s “reputation”. And while I certainly understand your decision to stop attending that church I cannot see just how a faithful Christian would not stay and follow their scriptural obligation to face sin in the church and forthrightly and deal with it according to the teaching of the scriptures. Regardless of how “awkward” it might “feel”. In fact, I am saddened that we have come to the point that recognizing sin and taking action to remove it from our mist is considered “awkward”. This particular sin is one that we all know exist not only among some so-called “preachers” but also among all men. Why on earth should a man be treated differently concerning any sin that any other person. God is no respecter of persons.

Then you ask your question as follows:

“ My question is, should I tell somebody, such as his wife, about this?”

There is no question that you should not have any concern for this man’s “reputation”. No man should be protected from the discipline of the church because of his “reputation”. A man’s reputation is his own responsibility and if he care in the least about his so- called “reputation” he should have lived up to his “reputation” and never committed the sin. Now, the very idea of our being righteous in order to maintain a reputation is wrong on its very face. We live righteous because we love, obey, and serve God. WE have entirely too many men who portray themselves as righteous for the sole purpose of maintaining a good reputation among men but the praise that comes from God alone they do not seek! There is not a single scripture in the word of God that teaches us to care for a man’s reputation. But there are plenty that teach us to care for his eternal soul. If this man never repents of this sin he will be lost eternally! Do we not care about this? If you and your husband can meet with this man in private and confront him in his sin and urge him to repent and save his soul from death you would that not be a wonderful thing not only for him, and the church but you as will. You will have gained a brother. If he will not hear you then you should take with you a few witnesses and meet with him again so that every word may be established. And if he fails to hear them you should take him before the church through the leadership of the elders and if he will not hear the church he should be to you as a heathen man and should be severed from the body of Christ until he repents. This advice is in harmony with the teaching of Christ in Matthew 18:11-17, which reads as follows:

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that [sheep], than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

Now it seems to me that you have already had a conversation with this man “alone” when he committed this sin and he has not hear you for he has not repented of it. Thus it is wise to take your husband, the elders, and these other women whom he has done the same thing to and meet with him again with the intend of calling upon him to repent of this evil. This meeting alone should be very powerful. And in that meeting you need to make sure that “every word is established” and that clear evidence of his sin is obtained. Then, if he still refuses to repent, the elders should take him before the church so that all Christians in the congregation, including his wife, can urge him to repent. If he still refuses he should become, as a heathen to all the saints and all fellowship should be withdrawn from him until he repents. Thus you would have every word established and your husband; the elders and the other women who he has offended will be witnesses that establish this man’s quilt before the church. And there will be no doubts about his being guilty of this sin and thus there should be no division in the body about how to handle this matter. And you will have avoided the awfully sinful rumor mill that carries truth an lies in mixed in the same unmarked bag! Nothing can be accomplished by working behind the scenes in secret telling fist one person and another and eventually telling his wife before this ever goes to the elders and the church.

And let me caution you to not ever forget the just purpose of your action is to save this man’s soul even if doing so requires the destruction of his false “reputation”!

Then you say:

“My husband wants me to keep quiet about it, so as not to damage the man's reputation.”

I understand how he must feel and I doubt that he is really as genuinely concerned about this man’s reputation as he may appear to be. He could be but I sincerely think that there is a great possibility that he is concerned more about you, his own family, and maybe himself. He may no feel that he can control or restrain the natural inclination of a man to be physically aggressive in these situations. I do not know him and cannot be sure of what I have just said. But if those feelings are even a remote possibility they cannot just be left lying around eating away at his soul either, now can they? Only you and your husband would know the truth about those things but I do urge you to not just discount them off hand because your husband is a faithful Christian, a humble man, and one who is generally calm under the worst of circumstance. His actions thus far have been admirable, remarkable and definitely controlled. He should be encouraged to continue to have this control and to sincerely care for this man’s soul. But I do not buy this concern for the preacher’s reputation though it can be the truth. And if he is so concerned please let him know that he has no obligation from God to care more about this mans reputation than he does for this man’s eternal soul. It could be that he does not want to deal with all this mess, and I cannot blame him! It is indeed far easier to just “go somewhere else and avoid all responsibility in the matter. Especially is this true if he knows that the church really does not know how to discipline its members. For in that case you could be facing fierce controversy and a barrage of accusations that you are not being “loving” or kind to the preacher and that you are being “judgmental”! And this is just another reason that all of this nonsense being taught today about not judging anyone is contrary to God’s word. For there is no way on earth to practice the discipline in the church required by our Lord for the salvation of our souls if we refuse to make judgements in these matters. The only thing we should be certain of is that we judge “righteous judgement” rather than that we avoid the exercise of all judgement.

Then you speak of your fears:

“ But I'm afraid it will happen again with someone else and cause them to stumble.”

As brother Demastus has wisely pointed out, your fears in this regard are indeed well founded. Especially is this true since you speak of his having done this to others. The you say that even though you have this fear you do not want to “destroy” the preacher as follows: “ At the same time I really don't want to destroy the preacher or the church, but he has done this to at least one other person in the past and I am concerned it will be a recurring problem and needs to be addressed.”

Fear should never keep us from doing our duty, now should it? Is it not possible that you were a victim because the other woman that he had done this to in the past had this same fear and it prevented here from doing her duty? I believe it is very possible, don’t you? And let us not for get that unless this man repents of this sin his soul is already “destroyed” is it not? It seems that you mean by “destroy the preacher” that you do not want to destroy his reputation and his ability to earn a living and provide for his family. Now, let us be clear that his soul is what is being destroyed before your very eyes. And unless his fellow Christians, who know of his sin, help him he will be destroyed in the worst way and the fact that his reputation and his job as a hireling in the church remained in tact will be meaningless wont it? This is one of the problems with this “hireling” mentality in the church. They that preach the gospel should live of the gospel but those who sin and refuse to repent must be rebuked before all that they might fear rather than their victims living in fear!

Then you again apologize for the potential offense that you perceive that you post might present.

“Again, I'm sorry if this post offends anybody. I just don't really know what the right thing to do would be.”

You should not be apologizing to anyone but God for allowing your fear to prevent you from performing your Christian duties. I do not say this to condemn you. I say it by means of making you in my own way aware of the urgency of this situation and to hopefully see it in its true spiritual light. We are all in a battle with spiritual wickedness in high places. And the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. But they are powerful. I hope to encourage you to join the battle and fight for this man’s soul. Do not sit idly by when you know that if he does not repent he is headed for an eternity of torment in a place called hell.

For Christ and those who are faithful to him.

E. Lee Saffold

P. S. S.

I know that you have not stated anything about whether you are a member of some sectarian denomination. But you can rest assured that if you are a member of the body of Christ that there is no humanly devised denomination on the planet that has any advantage whatsoever over the doctrine of Christ taught in the church of Christ in handling these matters. Those who follow the teaching of the word of God will always obtain better results than those who follow the doctrines and commandments of men!

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

I echo and say amen! to what E Lee writes above.

BTW--I am planning on a response on the other thread on baptism, Bro Lee, just haven't had time to formulate it yet.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Brother White:

You have said:

“I echo and say amen! to what E Lee writes above.”

I sincerely appreciate your amen Brother White.

Then you tell me what I suspected was the case as follows:

“BTW--I am planning on a response on the other thread on baptism, Bro Lee, just haven't had time to formulate it yet.”

I expected that you were working on a response. I understand that we must often put time and effort into our responses and that this is what gives then value, don’t you think? Thus there is no need to rush ever in responding to me. I often cannot respond for days. I look forward to your response as I am certain that it will be worthy of your excellent educational opportunities and attainments.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Danny you wrote:

"This is why I have committed myself (and my current congregation knows it)......the next time someone makes simply absolutely false statements about me for the purpose of causing me harm.....they will be hearing from my attorney. It's the only way to deal with this kind of trash anymore."

I hope to God that I never become so hurt and wounded by people in my ministry that I adopt a similar attitude. I am not chastising you, because I know some of the hardships you have endured, but I would only say that there have been much greater men in the faith who were for sure wounded but "considered it pure joy." I hope some day you can do the same.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Danny, I think this womman came to us with a sincere concern, and to treat her as the one in the wrong is really poor form. Why are we the only army to shoot our own wounded? The poor lady came to us seeking help and guidance, lets not turn on her! You also wrote, "if this REALLY happened to this woman..." accusing her of lying, when you don't really know the situation, and the go on to say, "...she has grounds for filing charges....pure and simple." But is that the Christian way? To file charges, to sue?

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? ... The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. (1 Corinthians 6:1,7a)

I think Lee is 100% correct, that the Christian way of handling it would be to first confront the preacher directly (as she has done), secondly to go to him with others, preferably elders in the church and/or others he has wronged, and finally to have the elders cast him out. And her congregation should hang with her, pray for her and be a comfort to her through all of it, as she is the victim, not the offending preacher.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

I re-post to comment:

This is a pathetic thread.

This is why I have committed myself (and my current congregation knows it)......the next time someone makes simply absolutely false statements about me for the purpose of causing me harm.....they will be hearing from my attorney.

It's the only way to deal with this kind of trash anymore.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 05, 2001.

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

Dear Lord,

Please keep Danny Gabbard, Sr. hunting many hours per week so that he doesn't have time to harm his congregants.

For a Christian 'preacher' to have such an unGodly outlook is dismaying.

He is willing to break all of your laws, Lord.

And Chamoisee,

I also think you should go to the elders with this. You do not want someone else to be harmed by this man's actions, do you?

And that is the Scrptural way. If you have already confronted him and he has not repented and gone to the elders and confessed his behavior, and agreed to become submitted to discipline and spiritual help, he will just continue his behavior. It will be worse for the church in the long run. What if he did this with a minor girl who might not resist his attention? Would you want that to happen to a daughter of yours?

This man needs to be held accountable. If he continues with impunity, it could involve lawsuits, and even violence by an irate father or brother.

Of course, you need to pray your way through this, especially since your husband wants to keep it quiet. May God convict him to act.

In Christian Love,

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Thank you, Connie.

I would only say that I think she has a responsibility to go to the elders whether her husband wants it kept quiet or not--a higher principle than submission is involved here and that is obeyong God rather than men.

And I agree with what you write about Danny's response. I would even ask the Lord to have Danny hunting on Sunday. Anybody who carries a firearm into the pulpit...(as I read in another thread) doesn't need to be there.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

CG White... it doesn't help this thread at all to bring up the firearms issue... deal with it elsewhere. Show Biblically that "Anybody who carries a firearm into the pulpit...(as I read in another thread) doesn't need to be there."

Danny,

In this forum we cannot tell when a person is lying (unless they are caught in a contradiction). That doesn't mean that we should always assume that they are. We should give Biblical help based upon the information we have. If the person is lying, then ultimately God will deal with that. Hopefully, in the mean time, the Elders who are brought in will wisely ferret out the truth.... I understand your concern about the damage that a falsehood can do to a good reputation but, if true, the damage this person could do if 'unchecked' would also be very bad.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Show Biblically that "Anybody who carries a firearm into the pulpit...(as I read in another thread) doesn't need to be there."

How about "Love does no harm to a neightbor..." or "Love your enemies..."

How about, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword...."

Or "Never repay anyone evil for evil..."

Handguns exist for the purpose of inflicting injury. It is notlike Danny might see a squirrel in the aisle and decide to go hunting...

And Danny

Who is a bigger threat...one who has honest questions about interpretations which legitimate scholars throught the history of Christianity have been puzzled over (such as the fact that if taken literally Genesis 1 and 2 contradict)...

...or one who knows the clear commands of the Lord on non-violence and ignores them?

Danny Gabbard is not a follower of Jesus Christ.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Danny needs to undergo a marathon of reading Scripture incessantly for about a year and a half. At least.

If we are to judge by fruit, I would certainly agree with you, CG, that Danny could not possibly be a Christian.

What scares me is that maybe he is.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

I re-post:

Like I said before...this is a pathetic tread....and I hope and pray no young men who are considering entering the ministry ever read this.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 05, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- What I pray is that no young man considering going into a ministry meets you and discovers that you preach.

What a horrible example of Christianity.

As someone said, "Do you think you're going to find a squirrel in the aisle?

The only reason to take a handgun to church is to perhaps harm or kill someone. What are you afraid of, Danny? I think you should be afraid of God, because He will surely judge you.

As for judging someone, you have all but called Chamoisee a liar. You can tell she is telling the truth and her motivation is not to harm the man. Her motivation is to put a stop to a very potentially explosive situation.

Sadly,

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

I really do not want this to be an "ad hominem". I am trying to measure my responses and not fly off the handle as I have done previously.

So let me try a different angle. Let's say, for the argument, that I do not believe Genesis 1-11 is true. (That is not what I have said-- I have said it is not to be taken literally--which is not the same thing. And I am not saying Adam and Eve are not real people--I am simply saying the account we have is a theological one rather than a historical one...)

Anyway, for the sake of the argument, I will stipulate my disbelief of Gen 1-11.

Danny and others disbelieve the passages below:

(Rom 12:17-19 NRSV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. {18} If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. {19} Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

(1 Pet 3:9 NRSV) Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called--that you might inherit a blessing.

(Mat 5:39 NRSV) But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

(Mat 26:52 NRSV) all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

That disbelief is obvious because they argue for self-defense even though the scriptures quoted above offer no internal grounds for questioning how to interpret them, as do Genesis 1 and 2. And there are no Scriptural principles which mitigate the import which these passages call us to--namely complete non-violence. As a professional in Biblical hermeneutics--I can say that there are legitimate textual questions about the Genesis passages which do not exist here. (Borrowing from my other thread--Hermeneutic options 1, 2, 3, or 4 are all that are available.)

So if I disbelieve parts of Scripture (and I am not saying I do-- except for the sake of the argument) and Danny disbelieves other parts, what makes his position more acceptable than mine?

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

Jesus said if your brother sins against you, to go to him and confront him about it alone first, then if he will not hear you to take two or three witnesses.

I don't see where you are under any obligation to keep this absolutely secret. If he has repented, and is accountable to people in his church about this problem, I can see why you might not want to tell everyone about what happened.

If the man did not hear you and repent, you might take your husband and an elder of his church as witnesses.

Church leaders should not be above correction within their own fellowship. Paul wrote Timothy that a charge should not be heard against an elder except by two or three witnesses. the implication is that two or three witnesses can bring a charge against an elder of the church.

I think you should point out some of these things to your husband. Look at Matthew 18. Protecting God's children from a man with sin in his heart is more important than only being concerned with man's reputation.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

No one will practice protection of themselves except out of vengeance. And these passages are absolutes. (For example--"Never repay evil for evil"...there is no way around it. It does not say "Never repay evil for evil except in cases of personal protection." If my wife or child were being attacked, I do not know what I would do. I may take the guys head off. But if I do it will be because I am doing what is wrong, not what is right. The point is there is no way around the NT and its clear call to followers of Jesus NEVER to use physical violence.

And Robin is wrong...this is not a straw man. The issue is the authority of Scripture and therefore these examples are relevant. Danny has such blatant disregard for the Bible that it morallly disqualifies him from even having anything to say here and I am merely trying to point that out. Someone who does not believe in obeying God's word has no place trying to tell others to do so. That is hypocritical!

If Danny would sue..it is the same thing. He simply picks and chooses without a cogent hermeneutic and that is all I am trying to point out.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

<>

Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor 6 that lawsuits among believers is wrong...and yet you have said to those in your congregation that if they accused you of anything they would hear from your lawyer.

And I more than answered Robins question about guns in the pulpit.

And like I said--if you will not accept the clear teaching of Jesus...then you have a lower view of Scripture than I.

<>

That is funny...you are the only one who seems to have anything personal against me. (Not to mention the fact that I publicly apologized for what I said to you privately, and you said,

< I would only point out that my comments about Democrats was made "AFTER".....the broad brush strokes.

Personally.....I would have never responded to you except for your remarks to Dr. Jon.

You can say all you want to about your views....but like I said....I took what you said to Jon....personally.

Have a better day!!>>

No problem with you??? Get real.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

That entire post did not come through, so I re-try

Danny says: Fifthly.....you have failed to show where the Scriptures say..."Don't sue.".....and as Robin pointed out....you have failed to point out where the Bible says carrying a gun in the pulpit is wrong.

CG answers: Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor 6 that lawsuits among believers is wrong...and yet you have said to those in your congregation that if they accused you of anything they would hear from your lawyer.

And I more than answered Robins question about guns in the pulpit.

And like I said--if you will not accept the clear teaching of Jesus...then you have a lower view of Scripture than I.

Danny says: ....keep right on CG....because all you are doing is turning more people on this forum against you with the venom you spit out. You are simply verifying the kind of person you are and indicated in the e- mail you sent me. >>

CG answers: That is funny...you are the only one who seems to have anything personal against me. (Not to mention the fact that I publicly apologized for what I said to you privately, and you said,

< I would only point out that my comments about Democrats was made "AFTER".....the broad brush strokes.

Personally.....I would have never responded to you except for your remarks to Dr. Jon.

You can say all you want to about your views....but like I said....I took what you said to Jon....personally.

Have a better day!!>>

No problem with you??? Get real.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

It looks like I've caused quite a stir by this question. if this is the effect, caused among people who do not even know the parties involved, how much more among those who are friends and family of this preacher? Danny, your response is exactly the kind of reason that I didn't want to make this public, and why my husband wants to keep it quiet. Given the choice between a popular, much loved preacher who's known and respected by the entire community and a relatively obscure woman who often has doctrinal issues to bring up at every bible study, who doesnt have a lot of friends in the church to begin with, who are they going to choose to believe? Not me.

I've thought about the two or three witnesses, and I don't have any, except a baby that can't talk, and the All Seeing. My other children saw the rose, but I was so upset by the whole ordeal that I threw it in the woodstove.

I don't know if the preacher has really repented or not. He kept calling and telling me how sorry he was, apologizing and saying it would never happen again. But at the same time, when I told him that I thought he should talk to his wife about this, he said that it would ruin the church if we told her and that we hadn't done anything wrong. If we hadn't done anything wrong then why the big secret, eating away at my soul?

You ask what kind of a man my husband is. Well I'll tell you, he's a gentle, kindhearted man, who rarely speaks an unkind word about anyone, even when he has ample cause to do so. He speaks peacably even to those who have wronged him in the worst ways. I think he's the kind of man that Joseph, the husband of Mary, must have been. And I am surely thankful to have a husband like mine, that believed me, instead of calling me a liar. In short, he is a gentleman, and the kind of man I can be proud of, the kind of man that I can always tell the truth to. He's an excellent example to me of what a Christian man should be like.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

Danny

Let me say I do not want there to be ill will...I am sorry I have misunderstood some of what you have said, although I also think you hasve misunderstood me. I did not call anyone a hypocrite--I simply said the incongruity I saw was hypocritical.

You correctly called me on my own incongruity earlier. I sought your forgiveness. I think it is at least as incongruous to call Connie stupid and say you are doing so in Christian love. I think it is incongruous to go into a pulpit and preach of Christ who loved us so much he gave his life and at the same time be carrying an instrument which exists only for the purpose of taking life. What I do not understand is how come when you pointed out my incongruity I acknowledged it, but when I point out yours it is "venom."

My intent is not to spew venom, but to understand the reasoning behind your views--and I guess to understand why you are so adamant about them. For example, you stated that I did n ot answer Robin's question, yet I more than answered it with the scripture references above and the fact that the very purpose of handguns runs counter to that purpose. Why can't you engage the issue on the grounds of the texts?

I also resent being accused of a "low view" of Scripture. There is simply nothing I have written to back that up. I freely admit that my views are neo-orthodox, but I contend that among the various options that represents a "high" view.

Your most recent post to Chamoisee is very well reasoned and I commend it.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

Danny, I have to agree with CG, that last post of yours was worth commendation. "If this really happened", as Chamoisee has said it has, then you are correct, it will likely not be the last time it happens, unless he is confronted with it. And the next time, perhaps the poor woman on the receiving end will not be as strong as Chamoisee and may give into temptation, and one or two marriages might be ruined. "If this really happened", then this is a man who needs help, and the only way he is going to get help is if people have the courage to do the right thing.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

Hello, Chamoisee,

I am thankful you have such a husband. Mary needed a husband like that when she told him her news.

I do pray that he will see the wisdom in holding this man accountable.

As you said, you only have your baby as a witness. And I would wager (if I ever bet, which I don't) that he knew no one else who could tell was there.

He may be just emotionally immature, or perhaps even evil, and he uses his very popularity to inflict this kind of behavior on unsuspecting females. Who knows how many others there are? He and God do.

The Scriptures say: "Be sure, your sins will find you out".

I believe if you handle this in the Scriptural way that this man can be turned in a different direction. The big problem is how his wife will react. If she threatens to divorce him for the betrayal he has handed her, it is his fault, not yours nor your husband's.

It would be best if she could forgive him and help him become accountable to God, to her, and to the elders of the church. But if she can't, it is his fault; no one else's.

Please act before someone else is betrayed. The next woman might not have a husband as kind and understanding as yours. And if he 'packs' a gun to church, there could be violence.

By the way, Danny, I was very busy today, and since it was last evening when I was so upset with you, I had a little time before the sun went down today to get over my anger.

I am over that, but I am concerned about you.

I realize you have unresolved conflicts. Too bad you would never go to a Bill Gothard Course. He used to give a seminar on Basic Youth Conflicts. It addresses some of the things many adults never deal with, and suffer their whole lives, as do their families, friends, co- workers, and acquaintances.

As soon as my children were sophomores in high school, I had them take that course (all five of them). It was expensive, (It was a five day course, Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday evenings; all day Friday with an overnight in the city it was held in, and most of the day Saturday). Previous attendees were able to go again for free, so I would go with my children. It was expensive, but it was worth it.

It didn't eliminate all of the problems associated with their young adulthood, but it helped tremendously, and set them in good stead for marriage. It was all Biblically based, of course.

I will be praying for you, Chamoisee, and your husband and the preacher's family.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

This guy dies and goes to heaven...and he sees a note on the Bulletin Board right next to the Pearly Gates:

TONIGHT 7:00 PM, ROOM 564, BILL GOTHARD SEMINAR LECTURE

So he says to himself, "I think I will go, I heard of those on earth but never got a chance to attend one."

He gets to room 564 and it is packed. The only seat left is on the front row. He goes down and takes the seat and notices he is setting right next to Jesus himself!

After the lecture, he turns to Jesus and says, "Gee, Lord, I never heard any of this before..."

Jesus looks him in the eye and says, "Neither have I."

*******

With what is hopefully some levity I would like to ask Danny to refrain from calling Connie stupid and idiot. It is demeaning and undermines, as I have said, his calling me on the carpet for calling him stupid. I had the decency to apologize to him, and he should exhibit similar decency to Connie.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Don't worry about it CG.

Danny will never apologize to anyone. He hasn't even repented before God, so how can you or I expect it?

But it doesn't bother me one bit. I understand completely that if one preaches a gospel of guns and resistance to governing authority (Danny has said in the past that he would never relinquish his guns even if the government decreed it)that the Gospel of love and peace, and submission to one another in love would not be high on his list.

Now, he says that he would sue for defamation of character any IN HIS CHURCH ~ so these would be believers, presumably ~ who made any accusations against him. Of course, the Scriptures say it would be better to suffer wrong than take a brother to law.

And we are to pray for those who despitefully use us, and do good to those who abuse us.

I feel sorry for Danny ~ and anyone who comes into contact with him.

Paul said there is no more slave or free, no more Jew or Greek, no more MALE OR FEMALE for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

I do not consider a talk forum to be an assembly such as where in an isolated instance, women were to be silent.

And I am not attempting a role of elder or bishop. I presume that Phoebe, Priscilla, Syntyche, Junia, and all of Paul's other helpers who were of such value to him, by his own words, spoke and even disagreed on occasion.

I am not offended by your humor on Bill Gothard's seminars, either, CG. They were all based faithfully on Scripture and were a great aid when we were rearing our family. I thank my God for every remembrance of his faithful adherence to the Word of God and to the witness of Jesus.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

By the way, I took a friend of mine to Bill Gothard's parents home in Glyn Ellyn, Illinois for counseling. He had an office and library in the basement. He didn't charge.

This was forty years ago. I had heard him in a seminar at an AWANA conference at Midwest Bible Church in Chicago before that and thought: "How can such wisdom be coming out of someone so young?"

I discovered he was my age (around twenty-seven)but he looked ten years younger. When he was in high school he had started a Bible Study club at New Trier High School which had 100 attenders. This was when young people were leaving the church in droves.

He gave all of his meager savings when younger than that to some mission work of the Lord's. The Lord provided him with three cars after he prayed for one for his work and one of them was brand new!

Please do not criticize one of God's servants. You remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they criticized Moses for marrying the dark-skinnned Ethiopian woman.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

I re-post to comment:

OK...let me get the "new" Calvanized version of the rules of the forum straight..... Connie....can refer to me (and E. Lee at other times)....as having "deep seated emotional problems".....but if I call it the way I see it with Connie (and people that REALLY KNOW ME...know that I simply call it the way I see it).....that is a no-no.

Hmmmmm.....seems to be I'm simply doing what the apostle Paul does a number of times in Scripture by referring to the talk of certain women as "foolish."

OK....I'll stick by Paul's rules.....rather than the "new" forum rules.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 07, 2001.

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

A little over a year ago, when I first came to this forum in early March, within one week you, Lee and Mark Wisniewski were calling me a liar and satanic, for the simple reason that I don't believe that water immersion saves anyone. I believe it is the baptism from above by the Holy Spirit which saves. And I always will, because I have the witness in my own life.

Water baptism is 'a figure', a 'demonstration', a symbol of what has really happened.

You had just gotten through a several month tirade with Nelta, Barry, dbvz, and several others on different issues who left in disgust.

Then you blamed me for something that had been going on for months before I got here.

I do forgive you, though, Danny.

I have gone back in the archives and know that you did not have the best childhood. It is difficult to overcome that. I do think that Christian counsel could help you come to some understanding of how you came to be the way you are.

I am neither mentally deficient, unable to express myself in speech, nor unable to care for my daily needs. So, while I am very imperfect, I am not an idiot, no matter what you say.

Just as baptism does not save, no matter what you say.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Connie:

You tell us a deliberate lie with your following words and you know it. You have deliberately lied to everyone in this forum with these words:

“A little over a year ago, when I first came to this forum in early March, within one week you, Lee and Mark Wisniewski were calling me a liar and satanic, for the simple reason that I don't believe that water immersion saves anyone. I believe it is the baptism from above by the Holy Spirit which saves. And I always will, because I have the witness in my own life.”

Connie:

With this statement you prove only one thing. You prove that you are indeed a liar, and a deliberate one at that. And I do not call you that because you do not believe that water baptism is for the remission of sins as we are taught by the scriptures in Acts 2:38. I call you that because you have simply told a lie. No one, least of all myself, Danny or Mark ever called you a liar because of your beliefs. I have called you a liar more than once as I am calling you a liar now. Not because you reject the truth concerning baptism but because you have lied about Brother Danny, myself, and Brother Mark with your above statement. And in every place where I have called you a liar you were deliberately lying to us as you have with you above statements.

I want every one to notice that Connie offers not one shred of evidence of her false accusation against Danny, Brother Mark, and myself. Connie, since you claim to have gone back through the “archives”, why have you not simply copied and pasted the words that we have spoken to you which indicate that we called you a liar simply because you do not accept the scriptural truth about baptism. And why do you not even attempt to reference the exact thread where those words are found and the date of those comments so that all can read them for themselves and decide if you are telling the truth? The reason you have not done this is because you cannot do it, isn’t it? I will tell the forum now that you will not be able to do this because no such words exist. And what is worse, Connie, you know it. You have done nothing more than tell a deliberate lie and you claim that you have the Holy Spirit! One thing is certain, Connie; it is not the Holy Spirit that led you to tell this deliberate lie. Satan is the father of lies and those who tell them are his servants.

Now anyone can find places where I called you a liar. In fact I can think of at least three occasions when I called you such and I am calling you a liar now which makes the forth time I have done so. But the cause is not now nor has it ever been because you reject the truth concerning baptism but rather because you are simply not telling the truth as your above statement is evidence. And it is clear that your above statement is a deliberate lie for you cannot produce any statements from myself, Brother Danny or Brother Mark that indicates that we called you a liar simply on the grounds that you reject the scriptural truth concerning baptism.

So we will wait Connie to see if you can copy and paste the exact words you found in the archives that proves without doubt that either of us ever called you a liar one the grounds that you rejected baptism for the remission of sins. Show us the proof Connie. For if we actually did this thing it will be in writing in the archives. I challenge you to find it. If you cannot prove it then I encourage you to repent of the sin of deliberately telling this lie about Brother Danny, Brother Mark, and myself as I have encouraged you to repent of your other lies which you have deliberately told in this forum.

You are a liar Connie. Not because of your rejection of the truth about baptism but simply because you tell lies like this one you have told in your post which I have quoted. And your lying has become habitual in this forum. Remember Connie that we are told that “all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimestone”. Repent Connie before it is everlastingly too late.

Now you say that you believe that it is the “Holy Spirit that saves”. Now the Bible teaches that salvation is in Christ (Acts 4:12). And it says that there is salvation in NO OTHER than Christ. (Acts 4:12). Thus it is Christ that saves us. It was Christ who shed his blood that we might be saved. There is not a passage that teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that saves us. The Holy Spirit came to reveal and confirm the word of God and through his work we learn of Christ and are by that means saved. But it is not taught anywhere in the scriptures that it is the Holy Spirit that saves us! But one thing we know that the Holy Spirit does not do, Connie. He does not lead us to tell deliberate lies as you have done. You prove by this lie that you are animated and moved by Satan who is the father of lies and not by the “spirit of truth”. You should verily be ashamed of yourself but you will simply “wipe you mouth and say I have done nothing wrong”.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

I re-post from the long 'What is the Christian Church, a.k.a. the Restoration Movement)' thread, the first one:

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 18, 2000.

My first post to this forum was on this thread on March 6, 2000, so it was 12 days, but I haven't found Mark Wisniewski's calling me satanic (also E.Lee).

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

Scott: I'm pretty sure that verse is John 3: 5 (and 6), instead of 7. I looked it up in all four translations, KJV, Ampl., NAS, and NIV, and they all say the same thing in meaning. The NAS says, [6] "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." I think this is one of the main ones that Lee keeps citing, but I'm right on this one. No water baptism until v. 22. The 'water' named in 3:5 is birth water.

I am doing a whole page of the verses I live by, with the Holy Spirit's help. I have several things that are keeping me busy, as you all do. And I know you have several Bibles, I'm sure, but I wanted the whole context to be presented.

I was looking at them with the attitude that, if I found a verse which says baptism is required for salvation, I would definitely change. So far I haven't found it.

Can we all get on the same page by looking up the meanings of:

1.) salvation

2.) justification

3.) sanctification

4.) righteousness

5.) grace

6.) mercy

It seems that some use some of these terms interchangeably, but they are all separate concepts.

Respectfully In Him

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 18, 2000.

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

Lee: you would do your soul better if you prayed and read your Bible. I feel bad for you! You have no peace and you believe lies. (And tell them!) Satan is the father of liars.

You have repeatedly said that I was baptized to belong to a denomination, which is a lie. Our church has absolutely no connection to any other church, except as Christ has made us part of the Body of Christ.

Our church will not even baptize or accept into membership anyone who does not give a personal testimony of their conversion, and if they can't remember their conversion, they must give a statement of faith.

I have belonged to this church for 33 years. In fact, I would not belong to a denominational church unless I had no choice. IT IS A LOCAL, AUTONOMOUS, (SELF-GOVERNING) INDIGENOUS (SPRANG UP IN THE COMMUNITY) AND HAS NO TIES, DOCTRINALLY, TO ANY OTHER CHURCH. I think this is possibly the 5th time I have said this.

You do not show the fruit of the Spirit, so I can assume you are not a believer. I think you are parroting a few verses you have heard from your close circle of friends. You need to get into the word, so that you can grow. You are stuck at an infantile stage. You have no wisdom or understanding; certainly no love, forbearance or mercy. But I forgive you, and may God have mercy on your soul.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 18, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FROM DANNY GABBARD, SR., THAT CHRIST-LIKE PREACHER OF THE GOSPEL:

Connie.. You are lying!!! There I said it. You had no intention of ever changing your mind about a thing!!!

You have had pages of evidence put up to you. In ALL of this you still have NEVER responded to the meaning of Acts 2:37-38....not once.

Your only answer to anything is whining, crying, and accusing people of chauvinism.

If you are not Nelta...then you are someone an awful lot like her. You got your mind made up and you came on here to try to bring a group of Bible believing Christians to your false "faith only" doctrine.

Your only method of determining someone's relationship with the Lord is....."how sweet they are." You even extended your right hand to someone who believes the white race are the chosen because you felt sorry for him and he was sweet.

My dear....if anyone on this forum has demonstrated a lack of evidence of the Spirit in their life it is you....for your desire is not to seek truth but to seek your own evil desires clothed in the whitewash of "sweetness."

Lee has lost more Bible knowledge that you will ever have.

My honest desire....is that people will quit wasting their time with you and "brush the dirt" off of their feet.

I had already come to that conclusion. But I will not stand by and watch you do one of two things....1) Falsely accuse a brother in Christ; 2) make absolutely riduculous statements without being confronted.

Connie, my prayer now is for you to repent of the evil in your heart.

In fact, the internet is loaded with people who believe you do. And....as Brother Darrell Combs suggested weeks ago....why aren't you there??? Your being here suggests....1) You are here to cause dissension and promote false doctrine; 2) You admit....we have the truth.

My "brethren" I'm sure will attack me for such a strong stance......but I trust they will reread the Scriptures about our attitude towards those who cause foolish controversies and division by their false doctrine.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), March 18, 2000.

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

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

You have to look at ALL of the different kinds of baptism mentioned in Scripture. Perhaps the Greek and Aramaic scholars on this forum can help us. We don't need scholars to tell us the simple message of the Gospel ~ the simplest, poorest, least intelligent person can understand it. It is, however, also profound enough for the most intelligent to be humbled and enthralled. There is nothing wrong with getting the most accurate information available, and scholars have access to that information.

There must be some reason that the Scriptures say to study ...to show, etc., etc. And of course we need faithful men to preach it, because unless people hear it, they will never believe it. They may never believe it if they hear it!

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 19, 2000.

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

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

FROM CONNIE: I MISS BENJAMIN:

Have I now been "Saffolded"? I was not going to respond to Lee's missive criticising me. (I have no idea how he will feel about me calling it "criticism"; whether he would call it that or not, that's how it felt.) I think it is wrong for us to be fighting among ourselves over side issues at the expense of the more important debate. However, after thinking about it at odd moments Saturday night and all day Sunday, I've decided I should say something, not to defend myself, but to explain why I continue to prefer the approach I have used. (BTW, I don't know what date will be shown at the bottom of this message, but it it now Monday morning, March 20, here in Hong Kong. Also BTW, I haven't looked at the forum since Saturday evening, H.K. time -- Sat. a.m. in the States -- so what I'm saying is in response to the state of affairs at that time.)

Most people, when they FEEL they have been criticised or "attacked", will react to "protect" themselves in some way. They may retreat -- not giving in, but going away. They may try to "defend" themselves in some way. They may "counter-attack". (It doesn't matter much whether what was said was intended as criticism or not -- if they PERCEIVE it as criticism, that's how they will react. Danny's reaction to my quite innocent remarks, mentioning his name, in connection with the brother/sister issue, are a good example.) The stronger they PERCEIVE the criticism to have been, the stronger the reaction (whichever form it takes); the stronger the reaction, the more "closed" they are likely to be toward future relations toward the person or the "side" that they FEEL "attacked" or criticised them.

I think my own reactions toward Lee and what he has said to me, and his reactions toward me and what I've said, are another example of this. I made a suggestion that I thought would help improve the level of understanding in this thread. (In retrospect, if we were back at that position again, I think I would have made much the same suggestion, but probably would have tried to put it more tactfully.) He felt I had mis-interpreted him, and I think felt he had been criticised and/or "attacked". He defended his position. I defended what I had said. He again defended his position and further criticised mine. I am TRYING not to respond in kind. I hope I'm successful. I TRY (not always as successfully as I would like) to apply the wisdom of Proverbs 15:1, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

With regard to what approach is best in discussions with Connie and others of the "faith only" persuasion, I am not an expert. I think both approaches can be defended from scriptural precedent. I like to think mine is more like the approach Aquila and Priscilla used with Apollos, Acts 18:24-28, and perhaps also the approach Jesus used with the Samaritan woman.

I have tried a variety of approaches. Years ago my approach used to be more like Lee's is now. However, years of dealing with people of all kinds of beliefs, including others with views like Connie's, have taught me that my current approach is more effective -- at least for me.

I won't claim to have changed the mind of every person I have discussed this subject with, but in all but a few cases the exchange has ended with the person conceding that I am not a heretic and that I MIGHT possibly be correct in my beliefs (even if the person him/herself isn't yet quite convinced), and with the person open to considering the matter further.

The first part of that -- that I am not a heretic myself -- is important. How willing are you, Lee and Danny, to even LISTEN to a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness? Probably not at all, because you are already convinced that they are heretics. Many "faith only" people won't even listen to us, because they already have the preconception that we teach "baptismal regeneration" and/or "salvation by works". Hammering away at them that "you are not saved" seldom breaks through that barrier. What usually does is acknowledging the beliefs you have in common (the basic core of beliefs about who Jesus is and what he has done for us is usually almost identical), and acknowledging that you are BOTH seeking to follow and obey Jesus Christ to the best of your own knowledge and understanding.

If you can get them to accept you on that basis, and they believe that you also accept that they are honestly and sincerely following Christ to the best of their present understanding, then you can go on to explain just how your beliefs fit in with theirs, and where you think theirs are in error -- where they need to change their convictions and/or actions to follow Biblical teachings more fully or accurately.

Even when I personally am not able to get them to go further than that, I count it as a success if they have gone that far. I am not so proud as to believe that I am the only person God will ever use to talk to them. I believe that God can continue to work on them through His Word and through the Holy Spirit and through bringing other people into their lives to help them to even greater understanding.

In fact, in many cases, even when they haven't yet changed their minds through talking to me, I have been able to get them to go at least one step further and agree to think about it further and to pray about it. If they will agree to this, I think the possibility is strong that someday somewhere God will bring someone else into their lives to take them the rest of the way.

I said earlier that "... in all but a few cases the exchange has ended with the person conceding that I am not a heretic and that I MIGHT possibly be correct in my beliefs, ... and with the person open to considering the matter further." The cases where I have had the least success in this is where the person has known someone close to them -- a brother, a cousin, a friend -- who has treated them in the way that Lee has been treating Connie. I have found that people who have had experiences like this are usually TOTALLY closed, consider me as being somewhere on the level of a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, and will not give me a hearing at all.

Regarding what I have said about "for the remission of sins" being part of the promise and not necessarily part of the commandment, and about it not being necessary to understand ALL of the purposes of immersion for it to be valid -- that part of what I said was not really addressed to Connie or Barry (if he's still around), but to the rest of you who share my beliefs that immersion is a pre- requisite for the remission of sins and hence salvation. (By the way, this particular aspect of the question -- whether "the remission of sins" is part of the promise or part of the commandment -- is not original with me. You can find the article by Cecil Hook, which I got it from, on the "net" at http://www.freedomsring.org/rebaptis.html. I would recommend reading it.)

For clarification, Danny, I never said or implied that what a person believes or doesn't believe ABOUT JESUS is not important -- only that what he/she believes ABOUT THE PURPOSES OF BAPTISM is not the most important factor and *may* not make a difference, in God's eyes, as to whether or not the person's baptism is "valid."

Do I regret that I posted this in a place where Connie and Barry could see it? do I think there is a danger that it will make them feel "secure" in their present position and that it is unnecessary or irrelevant for them to change their views. I don't know. I see that as a *theoretical* danger, but I have found that most people I have talked to appreciate me being completely honest about all aspects of the situation and leaving it up to their honesty and sincerity to decide for themselves, rather than me making the judgement and trying to force it down their throats. And I have known people to come to the conclusion themselves that they did need to be immersed "for the remission of sins" once they had studied it out, and thought seriously, themselves, about their motives for their earlier "baptism" and what it meant to them.

For Christ and his Kingdom,

-- Benjamin Rees (rees@hkstandard.com), March 19, 2000.

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

EVEN THOUGH HE AND I DISAGREE ON BAPTISM.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Connie:

There is absolutely nothing in any of yur above quotationsa from the Archives where either Danny, Mark or myself called you a liar on the grounds that you do not accept the truth concerning baptism for the remission of sins as you have falsely accused all of us of doing, now is there?

So, either quote our exact words where we called you a liar on the basis of your rejection of the truth about baptism for the remission of sins or we will all just have to conclude that you lied about theat now will we not?

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

I have lied in my lifetime, Lee, but I make it a very strict rule in my life presently to never do so. I cannot remember the last time I lied.

You are an insufferable boor. And bore, with your ad infintum repetitive postings.

The only reason you haven't 'Saffolded' CG is because he admires you, for some unknown reason. I know you and he are diametrically opposed on several issues.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“I have lied in my lifetime, Lee, but I make it a very strict rule in my life presently to never do so. I cannot remember the last time I lied.”

Yes, Connie, we know that you have lied in your life time because you are lying now with your accusation that Brother Danny, Brother Mark, and myself called you a liar on the grounds that you reject the truth concerning baptism. And so far you have been completely unable to cut and paste anything from the archives in this forum where we ever did such a thing. So, you are not following your strict rule against lying now are you? I can help your memory concerning the last time you lied at least in this forum, Connie. The last time you lied in this forum was on May 7th, 2001 when you said the following:

““A little over a year ago, when I first came to this forum in early March, within one week you, Lee and Mark Wisniewski were calling me a liar and satanic, for the simple reason that I don't believe that water immersion saves anyone. I believe it is the baptism from above by the Holy Spirit which saves. And I always will, because I have the witness in my own life.” I have asked you to quote the exact words from the archives to prove that this statement of yours is true and you have failed to do so. The reason is that you cannot do so because none of us have done any such thing. You have very simply, plainly and deliberately told a blatant lie, now haven’t you? Yes Connie you are a liar and the evidence of it is right before our face now isn’t it?

Then you say:

“You are an insufferable boor. And bore, with your ad infintum repetitive postings.”

Well, I cannot tell whether I am an insufferable bore or not. I find it interesting that those who accuse me of being such an insufferable bore seemed to have a great deal of interest in reading my “boring posts” and responding to them with the insult that they are boring. People like you who consider my writing so boring cannot seem to resist responding to them. It is humorous is it not that you think my writing is boring but you just cannot ignore them and you just cannot resist responding to them. Ha! I really think that you find them more disturbing than “boring”, don’t you? I have agreed with everyone now that I have no talent as a writer but I am doing what I think is right with what feeble abilities I have. This is good and I pray it is acceptable to God. If that “bores” you then find something that interest you and enjoy it.

Now, my postings are sometimes repetitive because my opponents are repetitive. Just because you have made an argument before and I have answered it before does not mean that I must now ignore it if you bring it up yet again in a different thread at a different time. This is a tactic that you false teachers use to escape from having your arguments refuted again. But every time you teach false doctrine I will answer it. And when you repeat that teaching I will answer it again, and again and again and again. If you do not want repetition then do not repeat the same arguments and false doctrine over again and I will not respond to them again. It is that simple Connie. Those of you who are teaching false doctrine concerning baptism are repetitive in doing so and I therefore am repetitive in my answers. And it will not stop and there is just nothing that you can do to stop it now is there? If you do not like it then do not read it and respond to it. But so long as you cannot resist reading them and responding to them you cannot really claim that they truly “bore” you because you demonstrate that you cannot resist them now don’t you?

Then you say:

“The only reason you haven't 'Saffolded' CG is because he admires you, for some unknown reason.”

I too cannot know the reason that CG might have to “admire” me. I do not know if there is any just reason that any man should admire anything about me. But I can tell you that we all have good reason to admire the precious Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord. And it is my prayer that He is pleased with me and you will find that to be the only thing that concerns me. The fact that some one may “admire” me and the vast majority despises me is meaningless to me so long as the Lord Jesus Christ is please by my thoughts, and behavior.

Now, just how would you know what my reasons are for doing or not doing anything? I am not sure that I have ever “Saffolded” anyone since I do not know what that means.

I really do not know yet what people mean when they say someone has been “Saffolded” but if you mean that I do not respond to CG you are woefully wrong about that. If you mean by that that I do not argue with him using the same “style” that I use in responding to others you may be correct. But the reason is not just that he “admires” me. It is that even though he and I are indeed diametrically opposed to one another on very crucial issues he is able to discuss them by paying attention to the arguments themselves without deliberately misrepresenting what I say. And he has thus far not used the tactics of ignoring all my arguments. And he certainly has never used the tactic that you often have used of telling deliberate lies about me for the sole purpose of discrediting me and prejudicing our readers against what I am saying so that they will not hear my arguments.

Now, I have no complaint when any man disagrees with me, even if he denies the very existence of God. I can respect him if he will discuss those differences honorably and fairly and with a constant sense of integrity. If he is sincere and does not deliberately do anything with the intent of doing nothing more then to deceive others. Now, in dealing with me Mr. White has generally stuck with the issues and has not descended into name calling, lying, and deliberately misrepresenting me. I know that in his discussion with Brother Danny he did get into some of those behaviors such as calling names and I did criticize it though I saw it as an exception to his normal manner. And he repented of it after Danny brought it to the forum and made it clear that he had done so. And I still consider him able to discuss matters in an amiable way. And if you were able to follow his example you would be treated with the same regard. But deliberate liars will never receive a respectful and amiable response from me. They will receive responses appropriate to their attitude. And I find that CG in the main has a good attitude though I cannot and have not agreed with his doctrine in every thing. I am adamantly opposed to his attitude toward the 1&2 Chapters of Genesis and his views on integrity of the scriptures and his doctrine concerning baptism. Indeed it is true that we are diametrically opposed to one another on those issues. I do understand his teaching about pacifism and agree with him about that matter, at least for now, though I am still studying that matter because of the good questions that Brother Danny asked me about that subject. But he is able to carry on a discussion in a way that both parties are able to easily seek to understand the issues and seek the truth and I happen to admire this trait in him. And therefore will continue to respond to him in harmony with that ideal way of discussing things. But he has shown that he can lose control sometimes, as we all are able to do. And if he does such I will respond accordingly.

SO, there is no difference really in how I respond to CG as you claim but there is a vast difference in the way that CG generally discusses matters and the way you, and others like you, discuss them. He may change his tactics but so long as we are able to reason together in a sensible manner I see no reason to not continue in just that way, for to proceed in this manner may yield some good result. And you show a great inconsistency in your complaint about how I respond to CG. You and others are constantly criticizing my “harsh” manner and when you find me not being what you would consider sufficiently “harsh” to someone like CG you complain about it. Ha! It seems to me that if I were treating anyone with the type of kindness that you would like to see me demonstrate in my postings that you would be pleased! Ha! But this shows, does it not, that you and the others who would like for me to be more “kind” and more “Christ like” in my responses are not really as concerned about those things as you pretend to be are you? For now you want me to be stronger with CG. You are not happy for me to be “respectful” now are you? You are indeed not only a liar but a hypocrite as well. For you hypocritically pretend that I am not Christ like because of what you deem to be harsh responses (though I believe that harsh responses is very Christ like). But when I am kind, amiable, and respectful in a discussion with someone whom I am diametrically opposed you complain that I am not equally “harsh” with him as I am with liars and hypocrites. Now should CG ever deliberately lie or be hypocritical in our discussions you will see the exact same vehement response toward him as you see in my responses to you. For that is the right way to treat hypocrites and liars. But CG has not shown himself to be either of those now has he?

“ I know you and he are diametrically opposed on several issues.”

Indeed I am diametrically opposed to his teaching on some issues. And he and I will be discussing them. In fact, you will soon be joining him in his discussion of Baptism with me because you think that he agrees with you on that subject. But you will see me hold the same position concerning that as I have always held in this forum unless he is able to show from the scriptures that it is an error. Which is something that no one else has even come close to doing in this forum. All they have been able to do thus far is to be outraged at the truth concerning baptism, which I have taught consistently in this forum. I am sure that he will do his best and I will listen and respond to any error that I find him making and I do not think that he will object to my doing so, do you?

For Christ and the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Danny wrote: "Again Link......you assume the man is guilty. What about his protection???? "

When I commented, I read the initial post, not the entire thread, before commenting.

Based on the initial post, I didn't see any reason to think the original poster was a liar. She didn't name any preachers names. I didn't accuse any preacher of anything. If the poster were making up a story, I haven't slandered anyone or ruined anyones reputation. If the poster were making the whole thing up, then she would be getting a response to a hypothetical scenario. I don't see any reason for anyone to get defensive about the idea of people 'bashing the preacher.'

Danny, as far as I know, no citizen of the United States is under any legal obligation to bring someone who commits slander to court. I agree that those who do such things should be held accountable. But Paul teaches that we are to judge those that are within. He rebuked the Corinthians for going to court with their brothers before unbelievers. He asked if there were not a wise man among them that could judge. He asked why the Corinthians hadn't chosen rather to suffer loss than to go to court before unbelievers.

Paul advised that if any man called a brother be a slanderer, to not even eat with such a person.

I once rad about a CoC that had a lawsuit in in. One group brought a suit against the elders for firing a minister against the congregations wishes. The case went to the courts. The elders argued that the Bible was their creed, and according to the Bible, they were right. The courts decided otherwise, based on legal reasoning. Isn't this an awful shame? Wouldn't it have been wiser for the congregation and elders to have agreed to have a Christian judge this case? Perhaps a Christian judge or an evangelist, a famous Christian author, or an evangelist? If the church were founded through the ministry of a particular man, the church could have asked him to judge the case. Isn't it a shame that a congregation would go before unbelievers to settle spiritual issues like this.

I would encourage you to not give in to the Spirit of the age by suing those who revile you. When the apostles were reviled, they reviled not again. Learn a lesson from Paul and learn to _give up_ your rights. Paul gave up his right to financial support. His statments to the Corinthians indicated that it was better to suffer loss (give up their rights) than to go to court before unbelievers.

I guess if a churches unwritten creed or bylaws doesn't stress not going taking believers to court with other believers, some think it's fine to do so. But we should take all the Bible into account, not just the verses that getrepeated over and over again in our own church.

I noticed someone said there was no good reason to take a handgun into the pulpit. I haven't read the whole thread. The idea of anyone, except for an off-duty policeman or someone like that, taking a gun into a church building, is an alarming idea.

But CG White, if someone took an unloaded handgun into the pulpit as a prop to preach against handguns, would that be a good reason in your opinion?

This thread does seem to be turning into a big nasty argument.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

I hate posting this and feel that it would better be dropped, but both Danny and E. Lee have insistently pressured and challenged me to do so.

This is from the archives in the 'Culture and Society' thread titled 'Thinking on Drinking: A new look at an old problem.' I feel that both Danny and E. Lee have unresolved youth conflicts which manifest themselves in their outlooks and insistence on very rigid rules for themselves and everyone around them and every organization they're associated with. Of course, the very ones who need to listen to certain messages are the very ones who never will.

The following was started by Duane Schwingel on February 8, 2000, and was very informative.

[From Connie: My maternal grandfather and uncle were alcolholics and my husband's father was, so I sympathize with anyone who is subjected to life in the home of an alcoholic. While I am thankful that Bill Clinton is no longer our president, I do understand that his step- father was an abusive alcoholic, and his mother's favorite leisure activity was gambling, so forgive his very bad behavior, to a degree].

The following addresses what is being discussed on that 'Thinking on Drinking' thread. It is open for anyone to read, so I don't feel I am gossipping, since I have been challenged to prove what I referred to:

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

Anyone who's been around a ***paranoid delusional schizophrenic*** or has one as a friend knows they darn well better be taking their drugs to cope with the realities of life!

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), February 10, 2000.

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

John, ***My mother happens to be such.***....but through good behavior therapy....and her relationship with the Lord....she is drugless....and has been now for years.

John....there is a huge difference between schizophrenia....and....just the normal everyday cares of life.

Also....there is a big difference between taking prescribed drugs to releive a legitamate physical ailment and......taking something because "life is too depressing."

If you haven't figured it out yet, I have a basic distrust of the pyschiatric profession....and psychologist....the vast majority of which operate from a secular humanist point of view.

And to boot....I'm not real keen on the medical doctors.

Ergo......because a "doctor prescribed it"....does not carry a whole lot of weight for me.

Are there extreme cases where medication is needed to control unsociable behavior?? Most definitely.

But ours is a society that is "overmedicated" as far as I'm concerned.....and with the distribution of Ridlin rising 700% in the last 10 years.......I see no chance for much of a change in the future.

And yet....boy we'll preach against the alcohol!!

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), February 10, 2000.

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

NINE DAYS LATER:

Benjamin.... Thanks for your well thought out post.

However, one statement you made that simply makes no sense to me is...."We are right to teach abstinence but not to say the Bible is dogmatic about it."

That is a troubling statement to me.

Upon what authority is one to rest, then, if they cannot rest on the authority of the word of God??

The only authority I have to stand behind a pulpit and teach is the word of God. Anything else is vainess on my part.

This whole thread has been an eye opener for me. Personally, I have come to see, that at least for me, it was/is wrong for me to teach abstinence and use the false hermeneutic of using the Bible apologetically to prove a preconceived belief.

***By the way, a preconceived belief, not shaped at all by Bible, but....***by an alcoholic father whom I wanted to be nothing like.***

Thanks for the discussion.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), February 19, 2000.

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

Danny, Thanks for your comment. I guess I need to give further clarification. Our ULTIMATE source of authority for determining right and wrong is the Word of God. We MUST obey its clear commands, and apply its principles to the best of our understanding; we must NOT do the things it tells us not to do. But the Bible is not intended to be a detailed rule book to give us the final word on every choice we have to make in life. (And Jesus condemned the Pharisees who tried to treat it that way for having "neglected the weightier matters of the law".)

Although some of my brethren believe that the Bible is clear in condemning not only drunkenness, but ALL consumption of alcohol, it doesn't seem so clear to me. I cannot find a clear "thou shalt not" on this issue. Therefore, to me, it seems to be an area of liberty where I am free to weigh other factors -- both principles within the Bible and other factors from outside, e.g. from science, sociology, culture, traditions, etc. -- to decide what I will do personally and what I will recommend to others.

***With an alcoholic father that you were reacting against, ***I suspect that even if the Bible were absolutely silent on the question of drinking, you might still decide (either from other principles that are in the Bible, or simply from experience) that it is better not to drink. I have no direct family experience like that, since most of my family are tee-total, but family tradition says that my great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather was the town drunk -- until he abruptly sobered up in a Salvation Army meeting in Wales, and never took another drink in his life (which is why my father's family were Salvationists and also tee-total for the next couple of generations). Since alcoholism tends to run in families and there MAY be a genetic factor, I might decide it is better for me also to be tee-total. As I said in my first message, my understanding is that recovering alcoholics are usually advised never to drink again, since the temptation to slip back into alcoholism is so strong. If there seems any likelihood that social drinking might cause someone else to stumble, I should follow Paul's advice that it is better not to eat meat at all (or drink alcohol at all) than to cause a brother to stumble.

So, in summary, I think that to say that the Bible commands us to be tee-total -- or even strongly teaches this -- goes beyond what is really there. I think this has to be an area of "opinion" where we have freedom to make our own decisions and must allow others the freedom to differ. But even someone who believes that drinking is "permitted" may still feel that it is wiser or more prudent to abstain and to teach abstinence (as long as we are not saying that this is what the Bible commands, when it isn't that clear).

With regard to preaching, a lot of our preaching is interpretation and application. We put forth a Bible principle and apply it to life today. Surely it is possible to put forth Bible teachings about temperance, not being drunkards or "given to much wine", not harming the body, etc., and then to RECOMMEND total abstinence while still admitting that it is an area where we have freedom to make our own choice. The Apostle Paul admitted that observing or not observing special days and eating or not eating meat were matters of opinion, but recommended that we not exercise our freedom if it was likely to lead someone to stumble. He commended marriage -- while at the same time recommending his own choice of celibacy.

Does that clarify things, or does it only muddy the waters further?

Benjamin Rees

-- Benjamin Rees (rees@hkstandard.com), February 19, 2000.

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

I think Danny's reponse to these things is normal. He was hurt by them.. I completely sympathize with him. But when he bacame a man, he needed to put away childish reactions to them. He will continue to be in denial that they have created problems for not only his parents, but for him.

Carrying a gun to church and threatening to sue other Christians who make accusations against him indicate a fearful personality.

I feel sad for Danny. But I don't think he should be allowed to abuse another with his firey tongue. So I'm holding him accounatable.

There are literally hundreds of places where Lee Saffold has called me (and many others) a liar. I don't bother to read most of what he says, but have read some of it. His favorite tactic is to snip part of what you've said and then twist it to fit his opinion, and then become a railer claiming things which are not true. Oh, well.

Sadly,

Connie

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

I was asked if I would allow an unloaded gun in my pulpit if used as a prop to preach against guns. Nope. Absolutely not. Would you allow someone to bring a pornographic video to church and use it to preach against pornography? Some things have no business even being in a setting where families assemble and where the purpose is to worship God. Guns are one of those things--period.

I agree that this thread has gone far afield. But I think that is due to Danny's meanness of spirit more than anything else. Whether Connie is truthful or not I am not in a position to say. But Danny has responded to her in very uncharitable ways and I am disappointed. For example He writes:

Oh...and by the way Connie.....to further embarrass you......most of my father's problems with alchohol....developed after I left home.

Why does he want so much to embarrass her? That is disconcerting to me.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“I hate posting this and feel that it would better be dropped, but both Danny and E. Lee have insistently pressured and challenged me to do so.”

Connie, what I have challenged you to do is to produce one single quotation from the archives where either Danny, Mark or myself ever called you a liar on the basis of the fact that you reject the truth concerning baptism for the remission of sins. For you have accused us of doing this and so far now you have gone to the archives to quote numerous things. And not a single one of them indicates that any of the three that you have falsely accused of calling you a liar on the grounds that you reject the truth concerning baptism for the remission of sins as you claimed. So again we still see that you have deliberately lied about that matter, now haven’t you. I know that you feel that this would “better be dropped” since you have been caught in a blatant, deliberate lie and cannot escape from the simple fact that you are miserably guilty of it. You would certainly rather “drop” the matter than repent of your sin which you have committed in the presence of all on this forum. But it would indeed be better for you eternal well being in the judgement if you would repent of such sinful behavior.

Then you say:

“There are literally hundreds of places where Lee Saffold has called me (and many others) a liar.”

That is simply not true either Connie. It is indeed an extreme exaggeration, now isn’t it? I have not called HUNDREDS of people liars nor have I called a limited number of people liars HUNDREDS of times. I have called some people liars WHEN THEY HAVE LIED TO US as you have done in your post to which I have challenged you for proof. But I have never called even you a liar on the grounds that you reject baptism for the remission of sins. I have justly called you and some others liars because they have indeed and in fact actually been guilty of lying and I have proven that they have lied just as I have now proven that you have lied about Danny, Mark and myself. So, again with your above quotes from the archives you prove to us that you cannot find one single comment made by Danny, Mark or myself that justifies you in your false accusations. Therefore you have lied about that matter, now haven't you? While you have not lied “hundreds of times” you have lied on at least three occasions besides this one. And I have called you a liar in every place where I have seen you tell a deliberate lie in this forum and this is just one of them. And there are exactly four people that I have on occasion called liars and I at least offered evidence to support my position that they were lying as I have offered evidence in your present case of lying. The fact that you cannot quote from a single post in any thread in this entire forum where Danny, Mark or myself have ever called you a liar simply because of your position concerning baptism is proof that you have deliberately lied about the matter. And of these four people that I have accused of lying I have only accused two of them once and one of them four times and one of them twice. That is a total of eight times when I have called anyone a liar in this forum and on each occasion I called them liars simply because they told a lie and I offered reasons to support my accusations. Now it is a fact that eight times is far less than that of HUNDREDS of times now isn’t it? And if you really believe that you can cite HUNDREDS of examples when I have called anyone a liar why don’t you just give us the actual quotations of the HUNDREDS of times that I have done this. And you cannot find a single time when I called someone a liar that I did not offer evidence that at the very least persuaded me that they were in fact lying. So your deliberate exaggeration is not true now is it?

And this is not the only place that you have lied, now is it.

Then you say:

“ I don't bother to read most of what he says, but have read some of it.”

This is probably not true either for you respond too often to not have been reading what I have said. But if you do not read it you would not be so concerned about it now would you?

Then you say:

“ His favorite tactic is to snip part of what you've said and then twist it to fit his opinion, and then become a railer claiming things which are not true.”

Now just how would you know what my “favorite tactic” is if you do not read “MOST OF WHAT HE SAYS”? Now either you do not read most of what he says and therefore cannot know about the tactics used in most of what he says and therefore cannot form a just judgement concerning that matter. Or you do in fact read most of what he says and have formed your opinion, whether right or wrong, from such reading and therefore you have not told the truth that you do not read most of what he says. Now which one is true Connie?

Then you claim that I have twisted what others have said. But you do not offer any evidence now do you. Again you merely assert what you are unwilling to even try to prove is true. I believe that your assertion that I twist what others say is untrue. But I am willing to listen to proof if you have any.

But you say all of these things to try and distract everyone from the simple fact that you have falsely accused Danny, Mark and myself of calling you a liar on the basis that you reject the truth concerning baptism for the remission of sins. You just cannot prove that we ever said any such thing to you, now can you? Why do not you just admit that such is the truth and repent of having lied about us in this matter?

So again we have proven that you are a liar about that particular matter, now haven’t we? And we are justified in condemning you for this behavior for it is indeed contrary to the will of God for you to tell deliberate lies as you have done in this case.

For Christ and the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

Oh, well.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Connie:

I do not know why you feel that you must pretend to be an expert on psychology as follows:

“I feel that both Danny and E. Lee have unresolved youth conflicts which manifest themselves in their outlooks and insistence on very rigid rules for themselves and everyone around them and every organization they're associated with. Of course, the very ones who need to listen to certain messages are the very ones who never will.”

Now, Just because you “feel” something, Connie, does not make it in the least bit true does it. Jacob “felt” that his son Joseph was dead and was grieved almost to death about it. But his “feelings” were WRONG, now weren’t they? So nothing can be proven conclusively on the basis of “feeling” alone. And Jacob suffered this way because of a lie that his own sons had told him. And they watched the consequences of that deliberate and intentional lie and did not repent and tell him the truth until he was almost dead and they allowed him to suffer all those years in grief and sorrow rather than repent and speak the truth. Now they finally corrected the matter but this is the nature of liars. They cause grief, untold grief, and they seldom repent for it is so hard to admit that one has actually lied about a matter. And you are of this character, Connie. For you have lied about Danny, Mark and myself and you know it. But you will not repent no matter what the consequences. I am now only concerned for your soul in this matter. For every one else can tell that you are unable to prove the truthfulness of your false charge and that you thus have deliberately lied about us. But they will not pay for your sin. You will pay for it in the judgement if you do not repent. For that reason I urge you to repent of it.

But just here you say that you “feel” that “both Danny and E. Lee have unresolved conflicts”. Now this only shows that you are a person of our times. We have been inundated with a false psychology that tells us that when others do not agree with the society around them and if they have strong convictions and stand firmly for them that they have “unresolved youth conflicts”. Our Lord Jesus Christ was the consummate controversialist and he resisted the teachings of his time and brought the truth into open conflict with lies and He was insistent on very rigid rules for himself and all that would follow him. And I can just see Connie telling others that Christ had “unresolved youth conflicts” because he was so ridged and unyielding that he insisted upon ridged rules for himself and all those around him. Hear his words, “not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” (Matt. 7:21) And why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say” (Luke 6; 46). And any one reading the Sermon on the Mount can see that his teaching was far stricter than the Old Law was for he said, “ it is written thou shalt not kill. But I say unto thee whosoever shall hate his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement”. He also said, It is written thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto thee whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart.” Yes the doctrine of Christ is strict and that is the doctrine that I am following and that I stand for. But I make no demands of my own upon others. I am simply teaching the doctrine of Christ and the demands that he has made upon us. And Christianity is demanding of everything from us. Read this verse, “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke 14:27-35).

Christianity is the most demanding religion on this planet because it is true and the truth is demanding in itself. The truth demands evidence and proof. A demand that Christ makes upon us all. And Brother Danny and myself are simply messengers of the doctrine of Christ and we are set for the defense of the gospel of Christ and are members of the body of Christ which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Therefore, we are teaching a demanding truth and will not give it up to lies nor give way to liars. We will not give one single inch of the ground of truth just to appease someone who is given to the popular psychological theories of the day that says when some one is obstinate and unyielding he or she is suffering from “unresolved youth conflicts.” If one were to ask you to prove that such is the truth you could not do it to save your life. But now you are pretending to be a psychological expert that can accurately judge these matters when even if you were such an expert you could not do it. Since you cannot gain any support for your arguments from the scriptures you must resort to lies. You should indeed be ashamed. But you are not ashamed, are you?

If you would like to see us being amiable and yielding quickly all you have to do is prove that the things you say are true from God’s eternal word and Danny, Mark, and myself will easily, quickly and eagerly yield and submit to it. For we have surrendered completely to the Lordship of Christ and if you show that the things which you teach are the doctrine of Christ we will yield to Him and his teaching in all things. But for those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ we will follow John’s inspired command. For the inspire apostle John said, “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him Godspeed for he that biddeth him Godspeed is a partaker of his evil deeds”. (2 John 9-11). SO we will not partake of your evil deeds Connie which you have committed by telling us deliberate lies. We will resist you and all that tell lies in the name of Christ. SO there is no reason for you to expect that your pathetic estimation of our Childhood, which you know nothing about, is going to have any impact upon those who have already caught you in a deliberate lie. For it is meaningless to them.

For those who love Christ and the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

CG,

I agree that it has gone too far.

I am not going to go back into the archives to dig out E. Lee's lies about me and multiple other people. I don't have the time.

I think the one where Mark W. called me satanic (when I was here a week or so) may have been deleted.

And I am not embarrassed by Danny's behavior toward me. I take it into account, and consider the source. I am concerned that he claims to be a Christian. No fruit; only leaves.

I wish I could find the one where I called those two the pit-bull guard dogs of the CoC forum, and poster boys for Pharisaism.

I feel sorry for someone like Chamoisee who was looking for Godly help and found this mess.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

CG,

I re-post to comment:

I agree that this thread has gone far afield. But I think that is due to Danny's meanness of spirit more than anything else. Whether Connie is truthful or not I am not in a position to say. But Danny has responded to her in very uncharitable ways and I am disappointed. For example He writes:

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

I just want to state that I am very careful about not lying and do not claim anything to be so that I do not have proof for, because I fear I might be bearing false witness against a neighbor.

I am very conscientious about this, and indeed the items I have posted above prove the claims I made. I'd have preferred to not post them. For several months Lee and Danny railed against Nelta in this same way before I even got here.

I am not going to spend any time posting the hundreds of instances where Lee has called me and many others liars. It was usually regarding the issue of baptism in my case, so any thread in the archives dealing with that subject will probably have several instances of such railings.

Lee thinks that intimidation is the way to get others to agree with him. It won't work with me.

Respectfully to you, CG.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

I know that others will be afraid to step in and say who is and is not a liar, because they do no not want to be 'Saffolded' and 'Gabbarded' again.

That's fine. 'If God be for us, who can be against us?'

God knows and I know who the liars are. May God forgive them.

In Him, and His Spirit in me,

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

I am not a victim. And I didn't blow anything in this particular matter.

I have 'blown' other things, but this is not one of them.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

And Nelta told the truth:

You, Danny, do have 'something against women'. And deer and hogs and anything that moves in your 'sights'.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Reposting to comment:

CG...the reason is very simple as to why E. Lee and myself answer Connie the way we do. Two reasons: 1) She is a liar....and needs to be exposed (as per the Scriptures). 2) It is simply a matter of "answering a fool according to their folly."

As per your comment about guns and pornography.....all that show is how "Clintonized" you have become.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 09, 2001. *************

Danny

I do not get it, man, Where in hades is your brain? In the first place, if a fool is to be answered according to his folly, then I was probably on target with the private e-mail I sent you. Your tone is as harsh as mine was. I think you are undoubtedly the biggest fool on this forum. And as much as I have enjoyed E Lee, I do not understand why he does not denounce you for the lunatic your posts make you appear to be.

As much as I have enjoyed Bro Saffold's writings, I guess I am calling upon him now to voice his disapproval of Danny's mean- spiritedness.

And as far as my being "Clintonized", where did that come from? I said nothing about Clinton. But there is no doubt that guns are as dangerous as pornography, maybe more. (Unless you can produce statistics about the rate of people being beaten to death with rolled- up PENTHOUSE magazines!)

You are a misogynist. Do you even know what that word means?

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

If you were really fair minded you would not talk about women and liberals as if theyy are scum. E Lee is fair minded, and maybe thaat is why he has not given up on you...

I also call an ace an ace and a spade a spaed, and that is why I have challenged you the way I have. Where is any evidence that you are fair minded toward either Connie or myself? Why is it OK for you to name call but not OK for others to call you names? Hypocritical!

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

CG, i re-post to comment:

Danny

I do not get it, man, Where in hades is your brain? In the first place, if a fool is to be answered according to his folly, then I was probably on target with the private e-mail I sent you. Your tone is as harsh as mine was. I think you are undoubtedly the biggest fool on this forum. And as much as I have enjoyed E Lee, I do not understand why he does not denounce you for the lunatic your posts make you appear to be.

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

The only reason E. Lee has not lambasted Danny is because they agree on 98% of matters being discussed here. Their only area of disagreement is on A capella or IM music, unless they also disagree on one cup/multiple cups.

And as for E. Lee's not attacking you, it is because you said something complimentary of him early on. He is diametrically opposed to almost everything you say.

Respectfully to you, CG.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

C G White

I have no desire to enter into the ongoing controversey but I could not believe you made the following statement."Guns are as dangerous as pornography, maybe more".

1. Guns can destroy the body. Porno can destroy the soul.

2. I will guarantee you more souls are destroyed by porno each year than lives taken by guns.

3. Apparently you have no idea the affects of porno on the individual, their victims and families or the numbers involved in this.

4. For almost 23 years now I have investigated cases of rape, incest, child molestation. Very seldom was a gun used but almost always the perp was into porno.

5.Porno is one of the MAJOR problems in our nation now.

6. When the porno dealers want to destroy someone they will not roll up a magazine and hit you with it.They will give it to your son or daughter.

7.Porno must be as addictive as alcohol or drugs and as destructive.

I can not adequatley express to you my dissapointment in you for this false statement you have made.

Lt. Faris A Sweet

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

I know first hand the problems porno can cause. I am a recovering addict.

It is awful...but guns are as bad. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending them.

I have had it with you foolish people. I wish I could say I wll see you in heaven. But probably none of you will be there.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

I want to say more. I have been in recovery since 1994. My wife knows this and is loving and supportive. My congregations where I have preached know. I have not hid it. (and to my shame I have seen it all...) The Lord has turned my heart away from this damnable stuff and I never want to return.

But guns and porno are alike in 2 ways:

1--They destroy the innocent. Guns often maim and kill innocent people and porn tears apart families and harms innocent wives and children.

2--They destroy the user. It is obvious how pornography destroys its users. But the meanness of many who say that the guns will only be taken from their cold, dead, hands (a la Charlton Heston) indicates that they also can and often do have quite harmful effects on those who own and advoocate their use.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

CG,

I will pray for you. Only someone who has repented, confessed, and turned from their sin can fully know what Jesus really did for them on the cross.

For to whom much is given, and forgiven, much is required, and it sounds as though you want to give Him all.

To be so open as to confess this in a pool of sharks is indeed brave. The blood is in the water.

Pornography-viewing is indeed a soul-destroying activity, but the Apostle Paul was responsible for murder, but was forgiven, as was David. Pornography is no worse than murder.

May God give you and your wife the grace to get all the way through this. It sounds as though you've made good progress.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

i re-post to comment:

And CG....you're barking up the wrong tree if you are going to call on E. Lee to "call me down" as you put it.

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

E. Lee knows me to be one of the most fair minded....and truth seeking indiduals that he has met.

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

THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE HUMOR THREAD.

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

He also knows.....I don't mince words....I call an ace and ace and a spade a spade.

I know liberals have problems dealing with that.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 09, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

CG

I pray for you in your recovery. I also pray for your family. I feel the first step to overcome any problem is to first admit there is one. Obviously you are well beyond that. I wish you the best.

Concerning guns. It was not my intention to defend guns but to point out the greater problem of porno. But since an accusation has been made I will briefly state my opinion on guns.

My grandfather hunted game all over the US in the 40s and 50s. His house was full of guns. When I was a boy my dad and I put food on the table with guns. Not stickups, but hunting. Without it food would have been scarce sometimes. I have carried a gun most days of the week for 23 years now. I have carried them in the church building although I would have prefered not to. Sometimes my wife carried it in her purse for me so it is out of sight. I was an investigator. On call 24/7. I also carried one on a tour of Viet Nam. I prayed then as I do now as a cop that I would never have to shoot anyone.

I don't like or dislike guns. They are like my hammer, saw and tape measure. For me they are a necessary tool.

Some of my best memories are of the times my dad and I went hunting or fishing togeather. I'm a better man because of it.

The conclusion of your post seems to indicate you feel I will miss heaven because of a love of guns. If that is true I suspect you wrote that in the heat of the moment and dont really believe that.

As for guns and porno. One can be a tool or it can be deadly in the wrong hands. The other destroys and leads to death if not stopped. I have delt with the end result of both and the destruction by guns can not began to compare to the heart ache and destruction caused by porno.

This is the end of my discussion on this matter. If you choose to reply I will read and consider your thoughts.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Faris

Thanks for your response and prayers. You are right about my response in the heat of themoment and I apologize.

But my problem with guns is not hunting or fishing. My problem is that Jesus taught pacifism and his followers, like him, do not practice self-defense.

When I say that, what I mean is not that people are unsaved...but if we ever use violence for any reason (police may be an exception because of Romans 13, but war is definitely not an exception) thenw e disobey the Lord.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Chamoisee,

Jesus said that if someone sinned againt you to go and show him his fault between you and him alone first. It sounds like you confronted the man the first time you talked to him. If he's apologized _and_ he's repented, then that may have been successful.

If he didn't repent after you confronted him, and then confronted him again with one or two other witnesses, you would need to take him before the church. But if he has repented, I don't know that you are under any scriptural obligation to tell the church about it. But on the other hand, I don't see any Biblical obligation that forbids you from telling others if you do it wisely. This is the type of thing you need leadership from the Holy Spirit on.

Of course, don't go against your husban on this.

James says to confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that you might be healed. I can understand why this man would not want to tell his wife. If I were your husband, I might consider telling the man that I would tell his wife if he didn't tell someone else in the leadership structure of his chruch about this, for the sake of accountability. If a man in this situation has a problem, even if he keeps confessing his sin, he needs to have someone else in the church to be accountable to. If he is in leadership and living in sin, the leaven of his sin can corrupt others. Even those not in leadership can corrupt others. This needs to be dealt with, and the man needs someone to check up on him.

I think it would be good for his wife to know, but I can understand why a man in his position would not want to hurt his wife by telling her something like this, even if it would be good for her to know to keep him in line.

To others,

Some advice on dealing with Dani,

When Paul was reviled, he reviled not again. He followed the examle of Christ.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

CG,

Imagine this scenario. A Christian is in McDonalds. A couple of guys come in with a gun and tries to hold the place up, full of people. It's gang initiation night, and the two men are talking about who to pop. The two of them have one gun between themselves, and the hero of our story happens to be standing in a position where he could wrestle the gun, pointed at the wall, out of the gunman's hand. Would it be wrong for him to use violence to get the gun out of the man's hand?

A real estate agent I met once tried to get me to work for him once. He told me some of his stories from back in when he was younger. Here is the story as I remember it. He had been a policeman. I don't know if he was a policemean during the time when this story took place, but I don't think he was on duty.

He was driving along, and he started having this internal debate about whether to have a hitchhiker-- in retrospect he thinks the Holy Ghost was wanting him to pick up a hitchiker. He didn't pick up hitchikers, but this time he was supposed to. The funny thing, is that he couldn't see any hitchikers on the road.

He went up the road, and lo and behold there was a hitchiker. He stopped and let the guy in.

The man pulled a gun on him. He had escaped from boot campl, and was in good physical condition. He had killed someone with a stolen weapon. This fellow was somehow able to wrestle the gun out of his hand. In the process, the guy pulled the trigger. Nothing came out. It turns out, the criminal had trained on a handgun which rotated in the opposite direction.

So this guy, using some violence, was able to wrestle the gun out of this guys hand. He said, ont the witness stand, he doens't even remember what he said, but he testified in great detail to things which hammered the nails in the coffin of this guys case. He said it was like a movie. At the end of the trial, the guy stood up and threatened to kill him.

This fellow believes that God used him to catch this guy so that he wouldn't hurt anyone else.

In one passage in the Old Testament: 1 Kings 20:36-37 36 Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. 37 Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Link

I would try to wrestle it away too. But if I take a life, with intent, even in self-defense, I have gone too far.

Wrestling it away is not necessarily violent intent. Returning fire would be. I may begin by trying to calmly approaching and asking for the gun.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Thanks for a good post, Danny.

I agree that the position one takes on pacifism does not define who is saved and who is not. People in my own church disagree with our own doctrinal position on it. I don't like it, but many of them are among the finest Christian people I know. I guess my struggle is with those who are adamant about being pro-gun. I can understand why you are equally uncomfortable with my position. Everybody on this forum knows where I stand so I will do my best to drop the issue--I am not going to persuade anyone, nor is anyone going to persuade me. All the cards are on the table with where we stand. Let's leave it there.

What about the baptism issue--if someone has been baptised by immersion but does not see that as an essential part of the gospel to be preached, are they saved or lost?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Have you folks thought about what this might look like to an unbeliever if they happened to wander by here, to learn a little about what a Christian is? I visit other forums, and I have to say that I am dumbfounded by the way you folks are tearing each other apart! I do understand that sometimes the truth isn't kind and sweet, but really folks, take a look around at the other forums here.

It just happens that the church I was going to was a Chruch of Christ. I didn't realize that this was a CoC forum until after I posted the question. If I hadn't met so many pleasant people at that church, who could disagree with me politely, I don't think I'd set foot in a Church of Christ after reading all this.

I really do appreciate the perspective you all have added. It has brought up another question or two, which I'm going to bring up in a different thread.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Chamoisee,

What you have stumbled onto here is the very thing that makes the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ a great place to be. Freedom! Freedom to discuss and disagree on Non-Essentials and the freedom to standup for the Essentials of the Gospel - no matter what others "Feel" may be right. Aren't you glad that Peter didn't fain away from confronting those who had previously screamed for Christ's death as he stood before them on the day of Pentecost?

But, if the conversations here take you aback, realize the circumstances. A great many of the respondants here have committed their entire being to the Gospel, as Ministry is much more than a "job" - it is a life. And when someone maligns the obvious teachings of Scripture - it IS a personal attack on that person, because the Gospel (Scripture) has become an inseparable part of that person. In other words, passionate questions draw passionate responses from passionate people - that's the way God made us and I for one won't argue with Him.

So.......keep those questions coming.

Lee & Connie,

I was wondering why my ears had been burning......now I know :~).

Lee, I appreciate you defending my honor.....just goes to show how deep true "love for the Brethren" truly goes.

Connie....my memory is probably as bad as yours, but I think that the accusation of me calling you a satanist is taking things out of context. More than likely what was said was something to the tune that you were supporting a position in opposition to clear Scriptural teaching and since one is either For God or Against God (and His Word) - that would have put you in the camp opposing God, which is lead by who........Satan of course. And if that is the case....I was right then and I'm still right.

Now in light of what Lee has posted & re-posted the term "liar" as applied to yourself does not seem to be too far off the "mark". And I can concur absolutely with Danny's "foolish" comments.

Faris,

Excellent comments on pornography.....those are the types of reports that more of the "Freedom of Speech, but ban the Guns" type of people need to hear.

CG,

Give me a break.....comparing pornography to guns is like mixing prune juice with Kaopectate - it just don't work. As you well know, porno destroys everything & everyone it comes into contact with - it has absolutely NO Value at all. Guns, however, provide: food for my family, hours of family entertainment and interaction, and a means by which to protect myself & my family from the evil that Satan corrupts this planet with. And since the Bible definitely condemns sexual immorality (obviously pornography), and yet affirms my right to protect and feed my family - my decision to arm stands firm in the comfort of Scriptural authority.

Like Danny, I can admire a man who stands firm to his commitments, such as yours toward pacifism. And as you said, you won't be changing your stance - great, stick by your "guns". All I ask is that you don't act like those idiot (yes, I said the "word") tree- huggers who would take my God-given and Constitution-confirmed right away.

This is one of the great things about the CC/CoC ideal - we can agree to disagree on this Non-Essential for Salvation. Now, we just need to work on that Baptism "thing"! :~)

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark

I am not with the tree huggers. They are ridiculous. I am not calling on your gun rights to be taken away. I am hoping Christian people will voluntarily give them up.

The juice with Kaopectate thing did not work:) Guns are as dangerous.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Guns are dangerous in the Wrong Hands..Only!

Faris is correct, they are merely a tool. If one's heart is corrupt, they will use whatever is available to execute their corruptness.

We beat this to a pulp back before the Election with Benjamin. Knives are dangerous. Chopsticks are dangerous. Scissors are dangerous. Shoot, computers are dangerous (electro-magnetic waves, you know). Even a Bible can be used to pummell one senseless. Where do you draw the line? (Even prune juice is a threat if abused :~)!

I appreciate the fact that you do not INTENTIONAL work to take my right to arm away. But the Liberal element Will point to you as an example for Gun Control. Like the Hippies used to say - "if you're not a part of the solution, then you're part of the problem".

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Well stated Danny, when you say:

CG....where is the media stampede?? Where is the call of knife registration?? Where is the call for licensing of knifes?? Where is the call for a total ban on knives....or at least a 7 day waiting period??

When will you and the other liberal acknowledge the fact that there is something far deeper that is wrong with our society?? When will you realize this is a heart issue and not a gun issue??

Fifty years ago guns were more readily available than the are today.....and yet......this current problem was not present.

If you want to argue guns from a pacifists position....fine. But your social argument against guns is pale and weak.

Maybe I need to stick to hermeneoutics and theology as how I argue.

BTW--what school in Louisville. That is my wife's hometown and I graduated from Southern Seminary, before Al Mohler took over. Al and I were in school together, and he was more liberal then.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Danny

Is it possible that we are understanding one another better? I hope so. And I will pray for the young man in Louisville tonight.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001