The thread about the preacher allegedly wanting a kiss got too long for my computer to download, so I decided to start a new thread.

A poster on the forum wrote, "...you don't know anything...and you are still an idiot."

In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus taught that if a man calls his brother 'Raca' he would be in danger of the council. But if a man called his brother 'thou fool' he would be in danger of hell fire.

When I was a teenager, if I got angry at my yougner brother, I sometimes called him 'stupid' or 'faggot.'

Then, one day, it occurred to me that Jesus teaching about not calling your brother 'thou fool' might apply to other words besides 'fool.' After all, the Bible wasn't written in Greek. Could the word for fool also have been translated 'stupid' or 'idiot' if it were translated intot he moderated vernacular? Who, besides MR. T in the 80's, or peopl off the Fred Sanford show in the 70's, goes around calling people 'fool.' There are plenty of other words that are used in English that substitute for 'fool' nowadays that are used to slam others, and to express anger.

Someone told me that a translation of the Aramaic Peshitta text translated 'Raca' as homosexual. The word seems to literally have meant 'worthless.' Maybe it was also used to mean 'faggot' in Aramaic.

Shouldn't we follow the principles that Jesus taught? Are the only names we shouldn't use in anger those that show up in the KJV? Doesn't 'idiot' fall into the 'thou fool' category?

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Answers

First of all....I made the post...and I'm proud of it.

Second......I presume you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he refers to the Galatians as "foolish??"

Thirdly....I consider neither Connie nor CG as a brother or sister in Christ because both of them reject what I consider a integral part of salvation....i.e., the need for immersion as a means of accepting the grace of God.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Link....I'll ask it again....was the apostle Paul wrong for referring to the Galatians as "foolish?"....(and I might add....they were brethren in Christ he was speaking to).

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Connie....you are so foolish....and the sad thing is....you know just enough Bible....to be dangerous.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

John....

Sorry.....I was aware of the Greek long before you were....and I in no sense called Connie a "moron."

No....she is simply someone who lacks understanding....and is misguided.....basically.....she is foolish. She is a trouble maker....and has been since the day she came on the forum. She has no interest in what the Bible says or what the RM is about. (Remember, this is supposed to be the "Christian Church" forum???

Her only purpose for which she is here is dissension. And if memory serves me correctly....that is a grave sin in the N.T. for which Paul often has harsh words for (let alone the fact it is one of the seven people the Lord hates (Proverbs 6).

So under no circumstance am I sorry about a thing I said about Connie and I will continue to hound her until.....she leaves. And if she doesn't....fine.....but I will feel free to point out the controversial, foolish, woman she is.

She has the "Hillary" thing down pat. When confronted....she gives an impression of repentance.....but has none. She loves to play the victim....as she thinks it gets her sympathy.

And your quib about the presidential debate.....you really don't want to carry that through....do you??

Otherwise....none of us would be able to follow Paul's example in anything...would we???

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Sammy Boy.......

As per my comments being read by others....yes they have and they are very appreciative and have wrote and told me. (They choose just to lurk.)

And as per Connie.....oh boo hoo.....poor little victimed Connie.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Connie....

You remind me of Jezebel....out to destroy the true prophets!!!....while you worship the gods of your choice.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Chances are CG....not even Jesus Himself could convince you.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2001

"Because of Connie"

EXACTLY!!!

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

First CG....your "hypothetical desert" sitation reminds me of the Sadducees...."Whose wife will she be" hypothetical situation. Hypotheticals are often the result of weak arguments.

Second.....this discussion.....even though every single thing has been repeated a gazillion times in this forum....should be carried on to a new thread because....it has nothing to do with the thread title.

IMHO!

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Danny

You do not have to consider me a brother in Christ. I could say I do not consider you one because you reject the Lord's clear teachings about non-violence. But neither pacifism nor non-pacifism or baptism nor non-baptism in and of themselves are what make one a Christian. And even if you do not consider me a brother, nor I you, what if we both are wrong? Isn't it best left up to Jesus?

Both Barry and I have more than demonstrated the error of "the need for immersion as a means of accepting the grace of God." That is simply NOT part of the New Testament teaching.

Do you accept Jon Dewey as a brother in Christ? I know Baptists do not insist on "the need for immersion as a means of accepting the grace of God." They see it as a form of witness, not a necessity for salvation.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Danny,

So if you behave this way toward those you consider not to be brethren, does that justify you before God?

Keep in mind that Jesus' immediate audeince to whom He gave the sermon on the mount was not made up of baptized post-Pentecost Christians. Yet His instructions were athoratative for these people as well.

You should be concern about not bringing dishonor on the name of the Lord, especially if you consider your opponents in this forum to be non-Christians, and yourself to be a true Christian. Unbelievers from all over the world can read your behavior. Can you imagine someone in Afga.nistan reading and saying 'if preachers are like that, why would I want to become a Christian?'

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

I re-post to comment:

First of all....I made the post...and I'm proud of it. Second......I presume you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he refers to the Galatians as "foolish??"

Thirdly....I consider neither Connie nor CG as a brother or sister in Christ because both of them reject what I consider a integral part of salvation....i.e., the need for immersion as a means of accepting the grace of God.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 10, 2001.

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

You have been immersed, but show absolutely none of God's grace.

I think you just took a bath.

I am thankful for CG's and Barry's witness from the Scriptures. It is exactly what I have been saying here for a little over a year.

Your pride, Danny, is about equal to satan's when he was cast out of heaven.

Now that is the first time I have implied anyone who claims to be a Christian is satanic here or anywhere.

But the words which come out of your mouth are not what I see coming from the mouths of the apostles and the disciples.

Repent, before it is too late.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Danny, to paraphrase from a certain vice-presidential debate ... you are no Apostle Paul. =)

Just an observation ...

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Personally, I think that any admonition Jesus makes concerning namecalling, especially if they have eternal consequences attached, should be taken very seriously. And is all this namecalling (and that's exactly what it is) glorifying God?

Danny, to answer your question about the "foolish" Galatians: The word used in Matthew 5:22 is "moros", which is where we get our word "moron" from. It means the same today as it did then, to call someone a fool, an idiot, stupid, a moron, etcetera. The word used in Galatians is "anoetos", (from a = without, and noeo = comprehension or perception) which carries a different connotation, that someone is merely unlearned, not comprehending, or lacking in wisdom or common sense. It's one thing to tell someone they are not understanding or comprehending ("a-noetos"); it's quite another to make judgements on their intelligence and call them hurtful names ("moros").

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Subj: fOOLISH GALATIANS Date: 5/10/01 1:03:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Hive827 To: Hive827

No matter how little or how much I know of the Scriptures, I take them to heart and attempt to live by their precepts: NASB Galatians 3

3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified? 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of Law, or by hearing with faith?

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

DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT BY THE WORKS OF LAW, OR BY HEARING WITH FAITH?...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

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

HAVING BEGUN BY THE SPIRIT, ARE YOU NOW BEING PERFECTED BY THE FLESH?...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

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

...DOES HE WHO PROVIDES YOU WITH THE SPIRIT AND WORKS MIRACLES AMONG YOU, DO IT BY WORKDS OF THE LAW, OR BY HEARING WITH FAITH?...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

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

3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THEREFORE, BE SURE THAT IT IS THOSE WHO ARE OF FAITH WHO ARE SONS OF ABRAHAM.

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

THE FOLLOWING CAPITALIZATIONS ARE IN THE NASB, EXCEPT THOSE WITHIN THE ++ :

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

3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

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

SO THEN THOSE WHO ARE OF FAITH ARE BLESSED WITH ABRAHAM, THE BELIEVER.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

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

"THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

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

When speaking to the Galatians, Paul used 'foolish'. He did not call them 'stupid', idiots, or 'dangerous', when their only weapon is the 'Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God'.

And he didn't mention baptism.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

NASB Matthew 5 5:10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 5:11 "Blessed are you when {people} insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 5:12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty {again?} It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

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

IF THE SALT HAS BECOME TASTELESS......IT IS NO LONGER GOOD FOR ANYTHING, EXCEPT TO BE THROWN OUT AND TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT BY MEN.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 5:15 nor does {anyone} light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others {to do} the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches {them,} he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses {that} of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 5:21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty {enough to go} into the fiery hell.

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

...WHOEVER SAYS, "YOU FOOL", SHALL BE GUILTY [ENOUGH TO GO] INTO THE FIERY HELL.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5:23 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 5:24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

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

Dear Lord,

I am sorry I have become angry and impatient with Danny and E. Lee.

Please restore a right spirit within me, so that I may have fellowship with You.

In the Name of Your Son, Jesus, and my Savior and Lord,

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Danny,

Are you really a Christian? You post's certainly don't give that impression. What did Jesus say we must do to our neighbour? Please try and be a little nicer to Connie; there's no need for such bitterness. As Link says "Unbelievers from all over the world can read your behavior. Can you imagine someone in Afganistan reading and saying 'if preachers are like that, why would I want to become a Christian?"

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

sam, John, and others.

God looks on the heart but he also keeps track of every word. He is the Righteous Judge.

He will hold Danny more responsible than He will hold me, because Danny has a larger responsibility. I am willing to be held responsible for my words, and as the wit says, I try to keep them sweet, because I may have to swallow them.

There have been some not-so-seet words come from me of late, and I am sorry. I rigorously hold to not allowing the sun to go down on my anger, however. I can't sfford anger at my age. (67).

Danny's and E. Lee's responsibilities are to God, not to me.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

...'COUNT IT ALL JOY...'

NASB James 1

1:1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.

1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various rials, 1:3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 1:4 And let endurance have {its} perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 1:6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 1:7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 1:8 {being} a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 1:9 But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position; 1:10 and the rich man {is to glory} in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away

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

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

What if I scream "GET A LIFE!" to a fool or an idiot, will I go to heaven?

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

"Get A Life"?

Isn't that exactly what you're saying to someone when you share the Gospel with them? Giving to them a "new and better life"?

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Of Course, then..........

Anyone who refused this better Life by refusing to follow the commands of the Gospel (i.e....believe, confess, repent, be Baptized)....would have to be considered as what?

Not unintelligent....because the information was given.

Not a moron (Raca)....the implication of that word in the 1st Century was that of one who was viewed as worthless or sub-human. Not the case here because the Gospel was shared in it's full form.

Foolish?.......YES! Foolish is defined as "1. lacking forethought or caution. 2. resulting from or showing a lack or sense." Only one without any sense would refuse to obey and grasp the "Good News".

Stupid?.......YEP! Stupid is defined as "1. lacking ordinary activity and keenness of mind; 2. characterized by, indicative of, or proceeding from mental dullness; FOOLISH; senseless." Refusing to follow the clear command of Scripture to "be immersed" is clearly a stupid, or senseless, act because it leads them in the way opposite of God's will. As Forrest Gump's Momma says..."Stupid is, as stupid does".

Idiot?.......DEFINITELY! Idiot is defined as "an utterly FOOLISH or SENSELESS person". If the shoe fits....you might as well wear it!

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Footnote:

The above definitions are supplied by the Random House College Dictionary.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Please, dear Lord Jesus,

Help Danny and Michael discover the wonderful love and peace to be found when they submit their lives and wills to you.

They need to learn of you, and how you are a loving, gentle, merciful, gracious Savior.

Their lives exhibit the antithesis of Christian behavior.

We will know they have given their lives to you when we see them bear fruit.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Connie,

For this I HAD to muster the willpower to reply to your post…

Matthew 6:1-2 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."

Help Danny and Michael??… discover the wonderful love and peace to be found when they submit their lives and wills to you.

I don't believe that Michael has even posted in this thread, but I'll throw him in there with Danny, Mark, and E. Lee. I have seen these men in this forum - struggle with biblical issues, not always agreeing, but ALWAYS doing their utmost to try to understand God's word and to obey Him. As for you knowing enough about their "lives" to make such a judgment call I seriously doubt. Do you know these men? Do you know what they do in their daily lives? Do you have such personal knowledge of them that you can make such a judgment?

"We will know they have given their lives to you when we see them bear fruit"

Connie…open your eyes…the fruit they have borne is plainly seen in their obedience to Christ, their willingness to share what they know about Christ with others. They are not men to mince words; their language is too harsh for you, so you say that they are not men of God. Again…open your eyes…take a look at Paul's words or the words of Christ. Honestly consider Paul...you would have said the exact same of him as you do of these men.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

And Lord,

Please help those who are so arrogantly self-righteous they criticize those who are on the front-lines of the faith in this spiritual war we are in when they themselves don't have a clue. Help those that are so politely rebellious to the authority of Your Word they sway the faint of heart with their outward appearance, but are actually whitewashed sepulchers. Help these same people to realize that there is more to a person (and more to life) than what appears on this forum. And may they also realize that there are a lot of other forums where their views would be welcome (where ignorance is bliss and in abundance). And Lord, give us the patience to deal with such as these.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

AMEN !

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

God, Please open their blinded eyes.

The blind leading the unseeing.

Reveal yourself to them. Have pity on them and free them from their carnality. In Jesus' precious and Holy Name.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

From another CC/CoC/RM forum:

@zianet.com writes:

> This doesn't speak well of what we have become!!! >

Bro Al

Trying to leave doctrine aside here and I know that is a hard thing to do. That is exactly why I felt I (just me not binding at all) had to leave the RM sect and see just what was out there in other sects.

It is not all perfect by a long shot but it has not become yet what you see in the RM sect.

I think the way of interpreting scripture by later day RM leaders (not Campbell or Stone) has created a system that guarantees such sad situations.

Being right is placed above walking in Romans 14 with a brother who is wrong.

Love is not allowed to reveal God's Glory to each other and this is surely a bad witness to the world.

I don't say this mean spiritedly or happily but as you said it does not surprise us in what we find. God must extend his mercy or by the rule-keepers' own way of looking at things, all is lost.

I understand your desire to "try" to let in light into the thinking that you see is wrong minded. However as most of those former "Anti's" on this list will testify (forgive me the use of that word) it was a thing God had to work on with them individually and not with an immediate response to hearing the truth more clearly from a well-intended brother.

Loving those that even don't love you and praying for them is I think at times all we can do to maintain unity. You can, if not careful, fall into the loveless trap in response to what you feel you were shown which of course is not what is needed and makes the devil smile.

Maybe a seed will grow with the water of the Holy Spirit but seeds grow slow and don't show evidence for long periods of time.

God is long suffering and compassionate and full of mercy; otherwise we are all lost.

God Bless,

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

I re-post:

God is long suffering and compassionate and full of mercy; otherwise we are all lost.

God Bless,

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

This should read:

God Bless, Roger

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

"Loving those that even don't love you and praying for them is I think at times all we can do to maintain unity".........

WHAT ILK !!

There is but ONE THING that brings Unity in Christ.....DOCTRINE!!!

Jesus acknowledged to God that, "Thy Word is truth". The ONLY truth in the World is God's Word - and God's inspired Word is nothing short of Doctrine. Therefore, to be unified in Christ, we must be unified in truth (God's Word). And to be unified in that Word, we must acknowledge, understand, & OBEY that Word.

Sure Connie, it would be easy to be unified with you. But that union would have to be OUTSIDE of Christ because your doctrine is outside of the clearly stated Word of God.

Sorry...as for joining you in such an unholy union, I (and I'm sure many others on this forum as well) can only say...."Hell no....we won't go!"

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

I re-post:

Sorry...as for joining you in such an unholy union, I (and I'm sure many others on this forum as well) can only say...."Hell no....we won't go!"

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

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

Oh, yes you will, Mark; Yes, you will.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Connie,

Can you please explain for us what it feels like to be God!

It must be a wonderful feeling to know everyone's eternal destination long before such ever happens!

But I wonder how it is that you can see my destination with that "Log" still in your own eye (Matt. 7:1-6)?

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Maybe the Optomitrist can treat you for......A"stick"matism!

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

And speaking of sticks, logs, planks, etc (depending upon your translation).................

"Sticks and stones may break my bones" (and poke Connie's eyes out)..........but the words of an idiot mean nothing!

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Mark,

The level of your maturity and love in the Spirit of the Lord are astounding. You are like Paul before his conversion. A hater of the true church ~ the body of Christ.

May God have mercy on your soul.

NASB Philippians 3 3:1

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things {again} is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3:3 for we are the {true} circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 3:4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 3:7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 3:8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from {the} Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith, 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 3:11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 3:12 Not that I have already obtained {it} or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 3:13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of {it} yet; but one thing {I do:} forgetting what {lies} behind and reaching forward to what {lies} ahead, 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus

3:15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 3:16 however, let us keep living by that same {standard} to which we have attained. 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 3:18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, {that they are} enemies of the cross of Christ, 3:19 whose end is destruction, whose god is {their} appetite, and {whose} glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait R168 for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;

3:21 Who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the Body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that he has to subject all things to Himself.

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

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

No, Danny,

I worship the Lord Jesus Christ and He is the only One I will serve.

And I want to continually put His words to work in my life.

Carnality rules yours.

From that other RM forum:

In a message dated 5/31/01 1:01:23 PM, - - - - - @aol.com writes:

Al said (I think) >> God said NOTHING in the NT writings either for or against IM in a "worship assembly," for example. Thus, I will NOT make it a test of fellowship or a condition of salvation. In fact, 99.99999% of the things we have divided into 40 or more warring camps over in the RM movement have NO basis in anything God actually commanded (or even *mentioned,* for that matter ..... they are based on ASSUMPTIONS of mere men; INFERENCES (often LESS than necessary) which have been carved in stone over time and elevated to LAW from on high!!!>>

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

This fellow and the ones he is discussing with have been in the RM movement for many years, so they know whereof they speak.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I have been in the RM for many years as well and I also know of what I speak. Something which you cannot say, Connie. You have stumbled onto a particular division of a non-instrumental group of believers. The Restoration Movement gets referred to many times on this forum (usually by those that don't have a clue as to what RM means) as though it is a denomination or something. It is not. It is a principle which leads us into a certain direction- i.e., the direction of the early Church.

Unfortunately, there have been several division within the body of those who hold to the principle. At the turn of the last century it was instrumental music. Many, in their zeal. made it a test of fellowship. It should not be. But when human beings get involved, things get messed up.

Connie, before you try to beat us over the head with the divisions, I would point out that all religious bodies have their separate divisions, e.g., Southern, Independant, Regular, Free-will Baptists (just to name one group).

By trying to compare us on this forum with those on the other does nothing to answer the statements about what you and others believe. Those on the other forum are as guilty of talking about the RM in the same way as you and some others have used the term. I do not belong to any persuasion of religious beliefs. I hold to the teaching of the Scriptures and belong only to the Church of Christ. I hold to the principle of the RM in that I try to get as close to the early Church as I possibly can. I do not wear a denominational nametag nor do I bow down to Alex or Thomas Campbell (although they were great men with a lot of insight).

So before you try and lump us all together - don't! I know and love Danny Gabbard and call him friend, but we have a few disagreements but none of them are over the basic necesities of the faith. I know and love my nephew, Michael Demastus, but we have a few disagreements - but none of them are over the basic necessities of the faith. Same with Wiz. Michael went to a Bible college with the initials of LCC (Liberal Christian College) whereas Danny and myself went to a Bible college with the initials of FCC (Faithful Christian College) and Wiz earned his degree through a very faithful conservative school and although we may have some differences, WE DO NOT DISAGREE OVER THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE PLAN OF SALVATION. We are different people who fight daily the fight of faith guided by the Restoration Principle, which takes us back to the Word of God and it alone. So dont try to lump us together with people who have nothing better to do than tear down something they didn't build.

And Connie, You are in no position to consign anyone to Hell. Repent.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I didn't mean to leave out Batman or E. Lee, but I do not know them outside of this forum but am convinced that I can call them brother as well, and that they also hold to the principle of restoration.

That's another point I wanted to make. Connie, what you see on this forum is nothing of a persons life and activities. You cannot even get a good feel for someone's personality reading black letters on a white background. And yet you claim to judge all these men by what you have seen here on this forum. You have claimed that these men do not show ANY Christian characteristics in their life (that's not a quote, but that is what you have stated). You only know of what they have typed onto their computer. I can't speak for you, but there is a whole lot more to me than my keyboard.

Can you tell that I have five children by what I have written. Can you tell that I have been extremely happily married for almost 21 years (although I'm not old enough to be that old)? Can you tell what kind of sermons I preach, classes I teach? Can you tell how I deal with people from all kinds of countries in all kinds of problems and stiuations in what I type? GET REAL!!!

Repent.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Hello, Scott,

I can tell from what you type that you are kinder and better informed than some others who post here.

You have never called me a liar or satanic or a Jezebel as some others here have, two of them within a couple weeks of my first posting here. And the sole reason they have is that I do not believe immersion in water saved me (I KNOW it didn't ~ I was already a Christian when I submitted to it).

My regeneration was effected by the work of the Holy Spirit, not by my adherence to a human work. The human work (water immersion) was symbolic, a 'figure' (figurative), demonstrative, of what had already occurred in my heart and inner being.

I disagree that the words we type here are somehow exempt from God's instruction in how we are to treat fellow believers.

Even if I were wrong in my 'take' on immersion, the way the CC/CoC/RM people have treated me would ensure that I would never assemble in such a place (even though I know some lovely people who go to such churches).

Actually, i know more who have left it than are still in it. My son's good friend who left to pastor a CC/CoC church in the east has left it for a Baptist Church.

The person I knew from Lansing Christian who was on the School Board at Great Lakes Christian College left it (several years ago) to attend a Baptist Church.

Perhaps Danny's "Repent and be Baptist", is a good idea.

In our church we have several people who have left the CC/CoC/RM. One couple helped 'found' three such churches, one in Connecticut, one in Katy, Texas, and one here in Michigan.

There is far too much strife in your group, and yes, I do hold it against you. You are damaging the witness of Christ. Some of you may just be the receivers of the statement: "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity; I NEVER KNEW YOU".

The Scriptures say: "You will know them by their fruit". I include the 'fruit' that trips off the fingertips to be included in that.

I am thankful for your family and long marriage. I have an almost 48 year happy marriage to the same man (only marriage), five wonderful children, their Godly partners, and seven (going on eight) grandchildren. God has truly blessed us.

We have had some sadness, but God has been very close to us in times of trouble.

You need to be admonishing your 'brethren' for their very unChristlike behavior, Scott. It does not glorify God.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I don't hold to Lee's ultra-fundamental interpretation on baptism (and strongly disagree with some of his interpretations of certain verses). But neither do I agree with those outside the RM movement that say that baptism is optional, lets not speak of it, its divisive, etc. I do however hold to the RM movements stand in that denominations are nothing more or less than sin, as 1 Corinthians is pretty plain about, and that many have gone to hell because of the divisions in the body of Christ, deciding that since none of them could agree, none of them were right. (Mormonism was spawned because of the blight of denominationalism, for one example.) Which is the central tenet of the RM movement. That we should drop all that divides us, all that is man-made, and unite on what unites us, that which was once for all given to the saints.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I do not like denominationalism, either, John, and do not attend a denominational church. I hardly think that the RM/CoC/CC is truly non-denominational, or is united on much of anything EXCEPT BAPTISM, (40 different groups in the movement, all of whom are the only correct ones, according to them).

It truly is good when brethren dwell together in unity (we experience it in our assembly), but the CC/CoC/RM isn't that church which dwells together in unity.

Criticize other groups all you wish; This one is worse than any I've seen.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

John,

I re-post to comment:

.) Which is the central tenet of the RM movement. That we should drop all that divides us, all that is man-made, and unite on what unites us, that which was once for all given to the saints.

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), May 31, 2001.

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

Do you think this will happen in your lifetime?

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Nothing ventured ... nothing gained.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

John,

If I may elaborate on what you said. We do not just unite upon what we CAN. If you read Eph 4 carefully you will notice (if you haven't already) that the unity already exists among believers. It is our job to "preserve" the unity. And it is preserved by the teachings of one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God. Now, whether Connie likes it or not, baptism is one of those items that unites true believers. The Word of God is the ONLY thing we have to preserve true unity.

Connie, You still have no authority nor right to consign a person to Hell. You need to repent.

Yes, I am kinder, gentler, better informed and better looking, but that is obvious and not open for debate ;o) However, that being said, it does nothing to counter the arguments that have been made. I am not comfortable with calling names, I admit. Idiot comes from the Greek word idios which means a person in his own world. I'm not trying to use the word as a slur, but that is a valid word describe how you react to certain things on this forum. You have been shown, too many times to count, different aspects of baptism, premillennialism, etc., and then act as though no one has ever countered what you claimed - that is being in ones own world.

Your attitude about baptism continues to concern me. I, as well as most of the people who post here, don't give a flip as to what your "take" on it is. We are concerned about the truth contained in the Scriptures concerning baptism. You and some others dance around baptism so well you could be one of the Solid Gold Dancers, or at least teach at Arthur Miller's. It's not enough that you were baptized at some point. In Acts 19 10 Ephesian men had been baptized by John the baptizer. What did Paul do? He baptized them into Christ. It wasn't enough that they had done it, there was a reason for it which Paul explains quite well in Rom 6.

The Scriptures teach quite clearly that a person becomes "in Christ" when they are baptized. It is not a working of man, as you have so ignorantly claimed that we teach, it is an act of God. Read Col 2:12 without dancing!

Now, if you want to start counting who's left where, I have a whole congregation full of people that have left the denoms. Our whole Hispanic ministry began by a Peruvian couple left the Baptists because they wanted to only teach the Bible and couldn't do it with the Baptists. So don't try and tell me about we being the only ones with division problems. Great Lakes Bible College in MI is not the school you want to use as an example of a RM school. They are very far left.

And Connie, as I said before, the unity is already there. It is our to PRESERVE it.

I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt by what people have said. But several of the positions you espouse I believe are satanic, because they keep people from (1) in the case of baptism, entering into the Covenant, or (2) in the case of premillennialism, understanding the purpose of the Church and always interpreting the Scriptures through the daily newspaper headlines. So, yeah, I can see where your ideas would be called satanic, although I wouldn't come right out and call you satanic, the way you maintain these false beliefs would imply that you are. I'm not trying to be unkind, just explaining the reasoning. To me, as well as other, your "take" on baptism comes straight from Hell.

You still have no authority nor right to consign someone to Hell. You need to repent. As my nephew says on occasion, "You're rear-end is not big enough to sit in the throne of God."

One other thing, I was not just trying to give a list of my kids or marriage. My point is that you know VERY LITTLE about anyone on this forum simply by what they have typed.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

You've gone and done it now, Scott.

You've said the "Hell" and "Satan" words.

I guess I'll be saving you a seat too...;~)

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Well, I guess it is time to shake the dust from my feet again, and leave you all to your internecine warfare.

Either that or rampant boredom. Real discussion of topics of importance do not get discussed here. Ennui and gun control, politics (I also am guilty here) and subjects which do not glorify God nor His Son Jesus.

I think of AKelley, Philip Watkinson, dbvz, Barry Hanson, CG, I, myself, and so many others who have been slandered and lied about. There is only hope for you: ~ if you turn to Christ in repentance and believe in His shed blood, death and resurrection for your sins, not some work of even righteousness, so that you will not boast.

You are boasting, egotistical, divisive and ungodly. God will judge that in you. NASB 1 Corinthians 3

3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able {to receive it.} Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3:3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not {mere} men?

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

'I AM OF CAMPBELL, STONE, THE RM, WHATEVER 'CHRISTIAN' SCHOOL ADHERES TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF, BUT NOT OF CHRIST'.

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

3:5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave {opportunity} to each one. 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 3:7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 3:8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive R114 his own reward according to his own labor. 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation R121 other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is {to be} revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 3:14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire...

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

MAY GOD, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF HIS HOLY SPIRIT, SAVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS, AND ENLIGHTEN YOU TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, ONCE DELIVERED.

He wants to do it, for he is not willing that any should perish.

My prayers and love will be with you, for where there is life, there is hope.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Brethren:

Connie has said, concerning Mark Wisniewski, the following:

“I can tell from what you type that you are kinder and better informed than some others who post here. You have never called me a liar or satanic or a Jezebel as some others here have, two of them within a couple weeks of my first posting here. And the sole reason they have is that I do not believe immersion in water saved me (I KNOW it didn't ~ I was already a Christian when I submitted to it).”

But I want you all to notice, Brethren, that Connie in the thread entitled “An Awkward Occurrence with A Preacher”, falsely accused Brother “Mark Wisniewski” openly and by name of being one of the three (not two) that she accused of Calling her a LIAR “within one week” after her initial appearance in this forum. Read her exact words to this effect in that thread dated 07 MAY 2001 as follows:

Connie’s exact words were:

“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.”

Now Connie, I am asking you to please tell us when you were telling the truth? Were you telling the truth on May seventh when you stated that Mark Wisneiwski called you a liar and Stannic within one week of your coming into the forum?

Or were you telling the truth when you stated on May 31, 2001 in this thread that Mark Wisniewski “never called you a liar or Satanic”?

For it is obvious that you are lying in one of the two places now aren’t you?

One other thing is certain. If you were telling the truth when you stated in on may the 31st in this thread that Mark Wisneiwski has NEVR CALLED YOU A LIAR or SATANIC. Then you owe him an immediate apology for having falsely accused him of doing such a thing in your post dated May 07 in the thread entitled “An Awkward occurrence With a Preacher”. We wait to see if you will apologize to him for your deliberate false accusation and if you will repent of the sin of lying which you have obviously committed in this case.

And yet another thing is certain. If this is the “witness of the Spirit in her own life” it is not the witness of the Holy Spirit, now is it? Who does the scriptures say is a liar and the father thereof? It was Satan wasn’t it? And the fact that she has lied in one of these two places makes it quite evident that the “witness in her life” is a “false witness” now doesn’t it?

Now which is worse, brethren, to call some one a liar when they are in fact lying to you or to actually in fact “BE” A LIAR? The answer to that one is rhetorical isn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Lee,

She said that I never called her those names, not Mark.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Connie,

I'll respond to you more later. Suffice it to say now that, ANY subject may or may not be glorifying to God. Subjects such as the ones you mention are needed to help people think more clearly about stands they take wanting to be godly about it. Although I am diametrically opposed to CG in most issues, I believe the subjests he brings up are usually relevant. And even if I think they are irrelevant, they may be to someone else.

But what you dont seem to get is that most of us have sparp tongues and some have sharp minds. If you examine the CONTENT of a debate instead the the EMOTIONS of it, you would have a different feeling toward this forum.

Gotta go.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Brother Scott:

You are right that Connie did say those words concerning you and not Mark. I thought that she was talking to Mark but I was mistaken. I thank you for the correction.

Connie I apologize to you for the statements that I made in my previous post. They were based upon my mistaken notion that you were speaking of Mark and not Scott. I sincerely apologize and ask that you forgive me for making it appear that you were lying in the above post when that was not the case at least as far as your words concerning Scott are related to the things you said about Mark.

I do however believe that you did not speak truthfully about your accusations made toward Mark and still believe it. In fact you still have not shown us one single quotation from this forum wherein Mark ever called you a liar just because of your position on baptism. He never has called you a liar on those grounds.

Thanks again brother Scott for the much needed and just correction.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

How do you unsubscribe yourself from recieving emails from a thread you start?

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Scott wrote:

I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt by what people have said. But several of the positions you espouse I believe are satanic, because they keep people from (1) in the case of baptism, entering into the Covenant, or (2) in the case of premillennialism, understanding the purpose of the Church and always interpreting the Scriptures through the daily newspaper headlines. So, yeah, I can see where your ideas would be called satanic, although I wouldn't come right out and call you satanic, the way you maintain these false beliefs would imply that you are. I'm not trying to be unkind, just explaining the reasoning. To me, as well as other, your "take" on baptism comes straight from Hell.

I also think pre-milleniallism is dangerous and better off avoided.

But on baptism, let me again state that baptism into Christ is absolutely essential to salvation. My o nly problem with this forum is that no one has even come close to convincing me that it has anything to do with water. (I guess the difference between me and you folks would be that you might say to me, "Just add water. :o) )

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2001

CG,

You astound me. You claim to be knowledgeable in hermeneutics yet I have yet to see you apply it consistently. John the baptizer used water (Jordan water, to be exact). Jesus was baptized in water. When Philip preached Jesus, he taught about water, hence Acts 8:36, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" Romans 6 teaches that baptism is a burial, as immersion in water is. Peter likens the water of baptism to the flood (unless you believe it was only a spiritual flood). After the household of Cornelius was poured upon by the Holy Spirit Peter asked, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

Did you notice that last quote? They had received the Gift of the Holy Spirit as the Apostles had (11:15 informs us that this was not a common occurance for it had not happened since "in the beginning"). Why, if this is what brought about their salvation (Spirit baptism), would Peter want to baptize them in water? As an outward witness? Get real! They were speaking in tongues. That was a pretty strong outward witness, stronger than getting wet. Yet Peter asks, Who can deny them?

The normal usage of the term baptism OBVIOUSLY had to do with immersion in water, and, unless you want to do some dancing, it is PLAIN. As a hermeneutical student, I'm sure you understand "normal usage."

The term "baptized into Christ" does not mean that Jesus is doing the baptizing. The person is baptized into the covenant of Christ. The same Greek word "eis" which is "into" is the same word Peter uses in Acts 2:38 when he says FOR the forgiveness of sins. It literally says to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ INTO the forgiveness of sins.

By denying that a person must be immersed into Christ, using water, you are keeping people from entering into the covenant with Jesus. Peter said to repent and be baptized. Jesus said whoever believes and is baptized. Ananias told Saul to arise, be baptized and wash away his sin. Rom 6 we are buried into Christ's death (which He died as a propitiation). Gal 3 we are clothed with Christ. Col 2 we have a spiritual circumcision. All of this happens at baptism - in water. Why? Because water has power? Of course not. Because by doing so we are choosing to enter the covenant. It is not the water nor ourselves that save us in baptism. It is the work of God. Col 2:12.

Notice these passages deal with "being buried" which is a reference to immersion in water. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a burial. Read the accounts carefully! The Holy Spirit fell UPON them. He never buried them nor is it ever referred to as a burial.

Now certainly you can agree that my hermeneutics are valid. You make silly jests like "just add water" but from my understanding of the Word of God, not being baptized for the forgiveness of sin sends people to Hell having ignored the terms of the new covenant. It's like trying to say you're married when you've never taken vows or had a marriage ceremony. You can say you are all you want - but you ain't (improper grammer used for effect).

I would also like to know how you can be consistent in hermeneutics and claim errancy. You must be, of necessity, a relativist with the Scriptures, picking and choosing those Scriptures you like and do not like, probably claiming the Spirit leads you in determining which text is inspired and which is not.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2001

Oh yeah, concerning Cornelius, Just becuase the Holy Spirit fell upon his household does not mean his sins were forgiven. Cornelius was told that Peter would tell them what they must do to be saved (11:14). Peter began preaching about Jesus, but he never told them to actually do anything until he "ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." 10:48. That is hermeneutically sound interpretation.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2001

The difference being the Holy Spirit UPON a person and the Holy Spirit living within. The Holy Spirit can only enter a person's life when his sins have been removed, which takes place when a person has faith in Jesus, repents of those sins and is baptized, in water - this brings about forgiveness and a covenant relationship.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2001

Brother Scott:

I haven't much time to write at the moment but I just wanted to say AMEN AND AMEN to your words. We have shown abundant evidence concerning "water" and it's connection with baptism and not one single person, including my good Friend CG White, has even remotely attempted to deal with those arguments. CG has talked about some things that we have written about this subject but the arguments concerning water he has not even attempted to discuss with us. Anyone that cannot find water in Acts 8:35-40 where we are told that "they went down both Phillip and the eunuch into the woter and he baptized him" just cannot see. And, I am disappointed that my friend CG seems at least to be deliberately refusing to see the water in that place. I have mentioned it to him several times and he has yet to respond to that particular verse.

CG:

Why not try to show us, using your hermenuticalskills, that there was NO WATER connected with the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:35-40. And why not try to show us that there is no WATER connected with the baptism of Christ (Matt. 3:11-16). For there we are told that Jesus came up straitway out of the WATER. And can you show us that there was no water connected with baptism in the words of Peter who said, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls WERE SAVED BY WATER. The like figure whereunto EVEN BAPTISM doeth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Christ:" (1 Peer 3:20,21). Now,CG, leaving off for the moment any discussion of what baptism is said to do in this verse. Can you show that baptism in this verse is not an immersion in water. Or would you argue that this is "Holy Spirit baptism"? If you claim that it is "Holy Spirit Baptism", as a student of hermenutics, what exactly in these verses or their immediate context justifies your drawing that conclusion? If you believe that this is indeed an immersion in water that Peter is speaking of how can you continue to claim, "My o nly problem with this forum is that no one has even come close to convincing me that it has anything to do with water." Are you going to say that baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 has nothing to do with water? Are you going to say that the fact that the Ethiopian Eununch and Phillip went down into the water and Phillip baptized him and then they came up out of the water does not convince you that baptism has at the very least something to do with water? Are you going to honestly say to us that Jesus Christ our Lord was baptised but it had nothing to do with water even though we are told that he "came up our of the water"? And the scriptures says that John was in "Aenon baptizing BECAUSE THERE IS MUCH WATER THERE" (John 3:23). I suppose that he did not know, CG, that baptism had nothing to do with "water", now did he? Otherwise he would not have sought to baptize in a place that had MUCH WATER there now would he?

And when the Eunuch heard Phillip preaching nothing but Jesus we are told that they came to a certian water. And then the eununch said "SEE HERE IS WATER WHAT DOETH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED? Do tell us, my good friend, what on earth made the Eunuch think that the BAPTISM, that was obviously connected with Phillip's preaching Jesus, had anything whatsoever to do with WATER? And what on earth made Phillip take him into the WATER to immerse him if "baptism had nothing to do with WATER" as you claim? I am really asking you, my friend, to show us just what kind of hermenutic has caused you to miss a point so clear and easy to comprehend? Surely it is not possible that you are simply allowing prejudice against the idea of baptism being "for the remission of sins" that causes you to not see all of this water connected with baptism in these passages. Do give this mater some serious attention my friend. Could it be that you have just not allowed yourself to see that which is contrary to some long held and endearing beliefs that it is difficult to change because of emotional attactments to them even though they do not have any basis in fact?

Again, Scott, I appreciate your words and believe that you have presented ample evidence for our friend, CG, to be able to see clearly that baptism has very much to do with water if he is, as I believe him to be, an honest and reasonable man.

May our Lord abundantly bless you and your family. It is indeed good to see you writing in the forum again. And I also wonder where Brother Duane has gone.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

Scott says:

The difference being the Holy Spirit UPON a person and the Holy Spirit living within. The Holy Spirit can only enter a person's life when his sins have been removed, which takes place when a person has faith in Jesus, repents of those sins and is baptized, in water - this brings about forgiveness and a covenant relationship.

CG replies:

No one has demonstrated that sins are removed when a person is baptized in water. How many times did Jesus say to people, "Your sins are forgiven." (7 times in the synpotic gospels) He never said, your sins are forgiven if you are baptized in water. Don't you think that if water baptism were necessary to having our sins removed he would have said do? Else I assume you think he mislead the woman caught in adultery, the paralytic, etc.

You limit the Holy Spirit by saying he CANNOT enter a person until they are baptised in water. I am not so comfortable telling the Holy Spirit of God what he can and cannot do. Do you really think he would say, "I won't come in unless you take a bath first." The eunuch in Acts 8 said, "Here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" What if there were no water? What if he believed Phillip's message about Jesus and repented of his sins but it was 300 miles to water and he died of heatstroke in the meantime? Would he go to heaven or hell? If you answer heaven, I have won the debate. If you answer hell, then let me take my place next to him, because who wants to serve a God like that???

Do you see how ridiculous it is to tie the grace of an unlimited God to an outward practice which does nothing to change the heart? And the heart is where sin is--the heart is where sin needs washed away. That is why 1 Pet 3:21 says water is A FIGURE of the baptism that now saves us--not a washing of the pollution of the flesh but an appeal to God for a good conscience. Baptism takes place WITHIN us, not upon us. How does the water get in us?

All this says nothing about the many references I have cited in other posts about how baptism is often used metaphorically and therefore we cannot limit its meaning to immersion in water.

Lee:

as far as my hermeneutic goes...I do not deny that the early church practiced water baptism by immersion. I do not oppose such practices. But I know that Jesus bapitzes with the HOly Spirit and with fire--and that has superseded water baptism, a point it took the early church many years to understand. My posts on this articulate clearly the ample biblical support for my view. I believe the view espoused on this forum is based on historical precedent, which is good, but no one has even come close to demonstrating that one cannot be saved without water baptism.

I have offered numerous scriptural points to clarify my view, such as the fact that the "one baptism" of Eph 4 cannot be water baptism because that throws out Spirit baptism. Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. It is unavoidable that if he was sent, not to baptise, but to preach the gospel, that water baptism IS NOT part of the gospel. Otherwise, Paul shortchanged his hearers.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

CG,

I do not know what you have written in other posts. I do not readd all that is emailed to me, only those I find interesting at the moment. But, your answers are pretty shallow and not worthy of your using them. I will respond later tonight when I have some time to answer you properly.

One thing though, let's keep our covenants straight. Jesus lives under the old. The terms of the new, which we are under were given in Acts 2:38. I would think a hermeneutics scholar would know better than to mix covenants ;o)

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

CG,

I do not know what you have written in other posts. I do not readd all that is emailed to me, only those I find interesting at the moment. But, your answers are pretty shallow and not worthy of your using them. I will respond later tonight when I have some time to answer you properly.

One thing though, let's keep our covenants straight. Jesus lived under the old. The terms of the new, which we are under were given in Acts 2:38. I would think a hermeneutics scholar would know better than to mix covenants ;o)

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

Would somebody who knows how please remove one of these last two posts? Something messed up and it double posted. Thanks. Remove this request is you remove the post.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

CG:

You have said:

“Lee: as far as my hermeneutic goes...I do not deny that the early church practiced water baptism by immersion.”

I am indeed glad to hear that you accept the fact that the early church, while under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, practiced water baptism. However you seem to over look the simple fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they practiced water baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since it is sin that Christ died to save us from it follows that no one will be saved until their sins are remitted. And Christ commanded baptism for this purpose and thus for our salvation. This is the reason he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

And you over look the fact that when Phillip was sent to preach to the eunuch that the Holy Spirit operated upon Phillip, the preacher, leading him to go to the eunuch and preach Jesus to him. And in the process of hearing the preaching of Jesus, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, the eunuch learned that he must be baptized IN WATER. And when they came upon certain water he said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” And they went down, both Phillip and the eunuch into the water and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35- 40). Therefore immersion in water was a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ. Now the Holy Spirit guided Phillip in his preaching to the eunuch and it was the Holy Spirit that guided him to baptize the eunuch in water. And the eunuch so far as the record is concerned was never baptized in the Holy Spirit. In fact, there is no record that anyone other than the apostles and the House of Cornelius was ever baptized in the Holy Spirit. And the scriptures make it quire clear as to the reasons that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 11:15-18; Mark 16:9-20; Heb. 2:3,4; Acts 11:15-18). But you are correct that the Early church practiced water baptism and they were under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to do so. And those who continue to preach under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the word of God even this very day will include immersion in water in that preaching. If they do not they are not following the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the matter at all.

Then you say:

“ I do not oppose such practices.”

Well, then I cannot understand why we are having this discussion. For if you do not oppose baptizing persons “for the remission of sins” as commanded by the apostle Peter through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38) then why do you at every mention of the subject insist that baptism has nothing to do with water and nothing to do with the remission of our sins and nothing to do with obedience to the gospel? Is it possible that you are claiming that you do not “oppose the practice” so long as it is not done in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

Then you tell us that you know the following:

“ But I know that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire-- and that has superseded water baptism, a point it took the early church many years to understand.”

Indeed, that is a position that the early church never came to “understand” for it is just not the truth. Indeed it is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ only that has the power to “baptize in the Holy Spirit and Fire.” You might want to expend some of your hermeneutic skills and tell us just what this “baptism in fire” is about and how it is to our benefit in some way? It is certain that “Baptism in fire” is not the same as baptism in the Holy Spirit now isn’t it? And it most assuredly does not supercede baptism in water, now does it? But for those who are not baptized for the remission of their sins, according to Acts 2:38, they will one day be “baptized in fire” because they are yet in their sins. Read this verse:

“And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Now reading this passage it is clear that the baptism of John, which was designed to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17) was a baptism in water. This baptism was one “of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Thus it is obvious that in order for John to “make a people prepared for the Lord” their sins must first be remitted. And this they most assuredly obtained when they followed the counsel of God given by John to be baptized of him for the remission of their sins. And those who refused to do so were guilty of “rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” (Luke 7:29,30). Thus we can see that the very idea of baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins originated with God through John the Baptist. Up until this time no one had ever been able by any means to actually receive the remission of their sins. Then John tells them that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire. Notice that the baptism in fire is not related to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is indeed very different and is opposite to it. The axe was laid at the root of the Jewish tree. And some of those there would be baptized in the Holy Spirit and some would be baptized in fire. For Christ was going to “thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor by gathering the wheat into the garner and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” I do sincerely doubt if anyone in this forum is looking forward to being “baptized in Fire”, CG. And this matter of Christ baptizing in the Holy Spirit found it’s complete fulfillment in Acts 2 and Acts 10.

Then you say:

“ My posts on this articulate clearly the ample biblical support for my view.”

I do not think this is true, CG. The above quotation from you is an example of why I doubt your assertion. For above you claimed that “Holy Spirit baptism superceded water baptism” but you offered not one single word of “Biblical support” for that assertion, now did you? And this is true in your other post as well. You merely say something like this is true but you give no “Biblical support” for it. Where dose the Bible teach that “water baptism was superceded by Holy Spirit baptism”? In this post, and in the rest of your posts, you have not shown us from scriptural evidence that such is the case. And you have not answered Scott's argument from the scriptures that are clearly contrary to your position. For he made it quite clear that even though the House of Cornelius was “baptized with the Holy Spirit” Peter still said the following, “Can ANY MAN forbid WATER that these should not be BAPTIZED, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to BE BAPTIZED (it was not optional now was it?) in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:47,48). SO, if “water baptism” was “superceded by “Holy Spirit baptism” then why did Peter INSIST that these who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit be baptized in water? And he did not just suggest that it was a good idea that he would not “oppose”. He commanded it to be done and would not allow anyone to oppose it. For he asked the question, “can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” He did not allow anyone to forbid it. In fact, that was the very reason for their having been baptized in the Holy Spirit! They were baptized in the Holy Spirit so that all would know that the gentiles were included in the offer of salvation or “repentance unto life” through the gospel and demonstrate that no man had a right to “forbid water” for them to be baptized. In fact, Peter used the fact that they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit to justify his actions in the conversion of the house of Cornelius and extending the benefits of the gospel to them with these words:

“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning, and I remember the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I COULD WITHSTAND GOD? And when they heard these things, they HELD THEIR PEACE, and glorified God, saying, Then to the gentiles ALSO hath God granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:15-18).

SO one can see that there was some reluctance on Peter’s part to even preach to the gentiles and that there was some doubt among the leadership in the Church whether they should be allowed not only to hear the gospel but also to even obey it. But God overcame that question by baptizing the House of Cornelius in the Holy Spirit before he even finished preaching the gospel to them. And therefore before they had even had a chance to hear it, believe it and obey it. The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as he had done to the apostles at the beginning. And therefore when it was time to baptize them in obedience to the gospel Peter said, “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized…” (Acts 10:47,48). So, water baptism was still necessary even for the house of Cornelius after they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. And they were baptized in the Holy Spirit to show that the gentiles also were granted the repentance unto life and therefore no one could forbid the water that they should not be baptized as well as the Jews. And I can tell you now that no one has any right to “forbid water” that any one should not be baptized according to the command of Christ. For Christ baptized the house of Cornelius in the Holy Spirit in order to make it forever clear that the gospel of Christ and the commands to obey it apply to everyone Jews and gentiles alike. For that reason no one prevented the baptism of the House of Cornelius as they might have done had Christ not demonstrated their acceptance through the gospel by his action of baptizing them in the Holy Spirit. But there is no place in all of God’s word that teaches that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was “for the remission of sins” or that it in any way had a direct function of removing sins. But Baptism in water is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and no other baptism is for that purpose in the scriptures and thus it is most assuredly the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4, which is a matter we will take up a later in this post.

But on the other hand, CG, you simply assert that Holy Spirit baptism superceded water baptism. But you do not show one word of Biblical support for it, now do you? In fact you seem to be ignoring everything in the Bible that contradicts that notion. You do not even bother to show us from the scriptures just WHEN it was that Holy Spirit baptism superceded Water baptism, now do you? And you admit that the early Church had a very hard time accept this idea. But the truth is that they NEVER ACCEPTED IT and you have offered no evidence that indicates that they did. I wonder why they never taught such a thing or accepted such a notion? Could it be that since they were being lead by the Holy Spirit that the idea was contrary to the truth of God? In fact, you do not offer any evidence that the early Church even considered the idea that “Holy Spirit baptism superceded water baptism” much less that they strongly opposed it. The truth is that it was never an issue in the early Church while they were being guided directly by the Holy Spirit in revealing and confirming the word of God.

The truth is that Holy Spirit baptism was never “for the remission of sins” and it was never commanded. Rather it was a promise and a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in Joel 2:28 and it was administered only by Christ and could not have been the baptism of the great commission (Matt. 28:19,10; Mark 16:16) for that baptism was to be administered by men. And indeed there is only one baptism and that baptism cannot be “Holy Spirit baptism” which no one, including you my good friend, has ever been baptized into today. Only two groups of people were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit and that was the apostles and the house of Cornelieus as far as the Biblical record is concerned. And none of them were baptized in the Holy Spirit “for the remission of their sins” and in neither of those cases did Holy Spirit baptism “supercede” water baptism. For they were all baptized in water even though they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. You cannot find one person in the New Testament who became a Christian after the resurrection of Christ that did so by being baptized in the Holy Spirit and allowed to ignore being baptized in water. There is no such record. Thus when the early Church was being guided by the Holy Spirit every one who became a Christian was required to be baptized in water and there were NO EXCEPTIONS even among the very few who were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Now just what does all of those facts do to your theory, CG? They make it extremely untenable don’t they?

Then you say:

“I believe the view espoused on this forum is based on historical precedent, which is good, but no one has even come close to demonstrating that one cannot be saved without water baptism.”

We have shown abundant and irrefutable evidence that one must be baptized “in order to” the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38) and that no one will be SAVED until their sins are remitted (Romans 6:23) thus until they obtain the remission of their sins by “repenting and being baptized” they will remain in their lost condition. That makes it abundantly clear that none will be saved without water baptism. (Romans 6:3-6;17,18; Col. 2:11-13) And you, my good friend, have not shown any evidence whatsoever that any man can be saved without being baptized in water. Even those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit were required to submit to baptism in water without exception. So, my friend, you have much work to do that you have left undone if it is your purpose to persuade us that baptism is not essential to the remission of sins. And you have an even greater task of showing us that remission of sins is not essential to salvation!

Then you say:

“I have offered numerous scriptural points to clarify my view, such as the fact that the "one baptism" of Eph 4 cannot be water baptism because that throws out Spirit baptism.”

No, My friend you have not offered very much support for your “views” as I have proven above and when you do attempt to do so you make feeble arguments like this one on Ephesians 4. There is indeed “one Lord, One faith and One baptism.” And that one baptism cannot be Holy Spirit baptism because Holy Spirit baptism was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28 which has long sense been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. It was never intended to be a perpetual action but a temporary one designed to “reveal and confirm the word of God with signs following (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4) and to show that the gentiles were accepted of God through the gospel. (Acts 11:15-18). And no one other than the apostles and the House of Cornelius ever received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the baptism of Ephesians 4 is the baptism that applied to every man including those who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. And the Ephesians understood this because we read of their conversion in Acts 19:1-6 as follows:

“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).

Now it is evident that the letter of Paul to the Ephesians was written to a congregation that had its very beginning at that time when Paul baptized them. These men had believed but they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit and Paul immediately realizes that something is wrong with their baptism. When he determined the problem he baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ. Now this baptism was obviously “water baptism” because Paul administered it. Only Christ can administer Holy Spirit baptism. And the Holy Spirit did not “come on them” until AFTER THEY WERE BAPTIZED and AFTER PAUL LAY HANDS UPON THEM. Therefore those to whom Paul wrote this letter had never been baptized in the Holy Spirit but had been baptized in water at the Hands of the apostle Paul himself! Now it does not take much thought, for those who understand “hermeneutics”, to realize that Paul would have been understood by his readers, who had only known a baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ, to be speaking of the only baptism that they knew. And if he wanted them to understand that he was talking about “Holy Spirit baptism” he would have needed to speak of it specifically. Otherwise they would have naturally understood him to be referring to the baptism that they had received which was baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ. This they had received at the Hands of Paul. Therefore, it is without question that the “one baptism” spoken of by the apostle Paul to the Ephesians when he said there is “one Lord, One faith, and one baptism” was the baptism that was common to all of them which was baptism in water. It therefore cannot be understood, and would not have been understood by them to be a baptism that none of them had ever experienced. For not any of them had ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit so far as the Biblical record is concerned. But they had been baptized in water. And they knew that all who preached the gospel under the guidance of the Holy Spirit taught their hearers to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) as Peter taught on the day of Pentecost.

There is nothing in the context of Ephesians 4, or in the background of the readers of that epistle that gives even the slightest indication that the baptism spoken of by Paul was anything other than the only one the Ephesians knew about. And the only one that was a part of the great commission and the preaching of Jesus under the great commission. It was water baptism and there is not one shred of evidence that it was “Holy Spirit Baptism”. And if there were any evidence that it was Holy Spirit baptism you have not offered any of it in support of your statement. And you assertion that this statement would throw out “Holy Spirit Baptism” is not exactly true for Holy Spirit Baptism was never a part of the gospel and the commands of the gospel. It was a promise and a fulfillment of prophecy but it was not preached as a part of the gospel and was not a command of the gospel to be obeyed. It was the means whereby God provided INSPIRATION to those who would deliver the faith to us. But Water baptism was an actual part of that “obedience of faith” which the Holy Spirit delivered to us by those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Heb. 2:3,4; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Matthew 28:19,20). There is indeed only one baptism that is a part of the gospel and the great commission to preach the gospel. It is the baptism that all men who became Christians in the New Testament submitted to. It was without doubt water baptism. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15;16; Acts 8:35-40). Thus, the truth that the baptism of Ephesians 4 is water baptism would not be “throwing out Baptism in the Holy Spirit” from the obedience to the gospel for it was never a part of the gospel and the obedience to it. One cannot throw something out of a “room” that was never in it in the first place! One cannot be thrown out of any place that they were never in. And one cannot throw “Holy Spirit Baptism out” of the preaching of the gospel and the obedience to it. For it was the source from which the gospel was revealed and the power by which it was confirmed. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4) But it was not a part of the gospel itself or the obedience to it. It was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, which has been completely fulfilled. And by it we received the Word of God that we now have today so that we can follow the preaching of the gospel and obey that gospel in the one and only baptism that was ever designed for that purpose, which was water baptism.

Then you make another weak argument, which I am surprised to see you make considering your knowledge of hermeneutics. You say:

“ Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. It is unavoidable that if he was sent, not to baptise, but to preach the gospel, that water baptism IS NOT part of the gospel. Otherwise, Paul shortchanged his hearers.”

Now this is incredible! If it were a fact that Paul did not baptize, which it is not, and that proved that baptism is not a part of the gospel. Then why do you not draw the opposite conclusion when you read of the inspired preaching of Phillip who definitely preached the gospel of Jesus? In fact, according to the record he “preached unto him Jesus” and that is all that we are told that he preached. And as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus the first thing to come out of the Eunuch’s mouth when they came upon a certain water was “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?”. Now in that case there is no question that baptism in water was a part of the gospel preached by Phillip who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. But CG did not make that connection when reading those scriptures because that would have been contrary to his views. Is this really how you want to understand the word of God, my friend?

But be that as it may let us take a closer look at 1 Cor. 1:17 so that we can come to understand exactly what it says. There Paul says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel”. (1 Cor. 1:17). Now those who have much understanding of the principals of hermeneutics know that there are in the scriptures many various forms of expression and one of them is a form called the “elliptical” form of expression. We have many of these in the Bible for example, “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him that sent me.” (John 12:44). Here the savior is made to contradict himself in a single sentence, by saying he that believed on him did not believe on him; but when we supply the ellipsis all is plain. “He that believeth on me, believeth not (only) on me but (also) on him that sent me”. Now let’s try another. “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you.” (Matt. 10:19.20). Here again unless the ellipsis is supplied, Christ contradicts himself by first saying it would be given them what they should speak, and then telling them that they should not speak at all. When the ellipsis is supplied the passage reads thus: “It is not (only) you that speak, but (also) the spirit of my father that speaketh in you.” I am sure that all would agree that this is the case in these verses.

Then why may we not understand Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:17 in the same way? For when we supply the ellipsis it reads thus: “Christ sent me not (only) to baptize but (also) to preach the gospel”. If this ellipsis is not allowed, then we have Paul doing that for which he had no authority. For he says that he did baptize some of the Corinthians; and he says that he himself had baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the entire household of Stephenus. Now, can anyone suppose that Paul raised his before God and said, “in the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you”, when Christ gave him no authority to baptize at all? I most certainly hope no one would imply that Paul deliberately disobeyed God by baptizing people when God had not authorized him to do so. But the truth is that Paul was sent not only to baptize but also to preach the gospel, which is the direct opposite to what my good friend, CG, would have us to believe. Paul did not thank God that but few of them had been baptized, but only that few of them had been baptized by him and he gives his reason for this as follows: “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name”. (1 Cor. 1:15). And Paul does not say that he baptized but a few persons at all, but that he had baptized but few of the Corinthians, among whom this unfortunate division had sprung up. He might have baptized thousands elsewhere.

But while we are at this portion of scripture let us take note of something very significant that my good friend, CG, has overlooked along with many others. Notice the rest of the context of Paul’s words: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that their be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement. For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-12).

Thus he shows the reason why he was glad that he had not baptized many of them because they were taking on the names of those who had baptized them and claiming that they were of them instead of the truth that they belong to Christ. But it is indeed instructive to notice Paul’s answer, which was in the form of rhetorical questions of which they all knew the answer. He asked, is Christ divided? And the answer was clearly NO. Then he asked was Paul crucified for you? Again the answer was a resounding NO? And then he asked were you baptized in the name of Paul? And again the answer was NO. Then the conclusion was obvious that they should not be divided because they were a part of the body of Christ and Christ is not divided. And it was also obvious that they could not belong to Paul because Paul was not crucified for them and they were not baptized in the name of Paul. Thus it is clear that it was Christ who was crucified for them and they were baptized into His name therefore they belonged to Christ and not Paul, or Cephas or Apollos. Now, anyone can see from Paul’s argument here that two things were essential for one to belong to or be of Christ. Christ had to be crucified for them and they had to be baptized into Christ. No one can deny that this was Paul’s point. He was showing them that there were two reasons that they belonged to Christ and not Paul. And the two reasons were that Christ was crucified for them and they were baptized in the name of Christ. And anyone to this day that would “belong to Christ” Christ must have been crucified for them, which he was, and they must be baptized in the name of Christ. And this baptism that Paul speaks of is water baptism because it is the baptism that Paul himself had had administered for Crispus, Gaius, and the entire house of Stephanus. Only Christ could administer Holy Spirit baptism. Therefore this baptism that Paul says was evidence that the Corinthians belonged to Christ was the baptism which was administered by men in the name of Christ. And that baptism was water baptism. And that is the truth taught by Paul in this place.

If one has not been baptized in the name of Christ he does not belong to Christ at all. And if this were not true Paul’s argument in this place would have had no meaning whatsoever. So, this portion of scripture proves far more than my friend would like for it to prove. But it most certainly cannot prove his contention that “water baptism was not a part of the gospel” because the context does not allow it and the actual words, which he quoted, are elliptical and thus they do not even say what he claims that they have said. And anyone familiar with hermeneutics can see that my friend, who is quite familiar with those principles, has left his skill in hermeneutics at the door when he examined these verses.

Now Brethren and Friends, I hope that you will notice that it takes some diligent study and research to understand the truth of God’s word in these days when people merely make assertions about the Bible without referring directly to what it says. And during these times when even if they mention a passage they mention only the parts of it that appear to support their views. Rather than taking a close look at the context in which it is placed and reviewing what the rest of the word of God has to say about it. Let me urge you to not settle for this kind of mishandling of the word of God. Go and search for yourself for the word of God is it’s own best interpreter. And you will find it a great joy to learn the truth from God’s word rather than the suppositions and theories of men about God’s word.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

I want to lay this baptism thing to rest once and for all, so I will again re-state the biblical position. If people are too "shallow" to get it, I cannot help it. I have no idea why Scott says I am shallow. I have done nothing, except the one post I sent Danny, to ever give anyone just cause for offense. So I have no apologies to make for my theological views, but I will, for the final time, attempt to state them clearly.

Scott alleges that Acts 2:38 give us the terms of the new covenant. But water baptism is an old covenant thing itself. The Jews began to practice it, or really those who the Jews proselyzed, and John came preaching a baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of sins.(Mark 1:4) Four verses later John himself makes clear that baptism with water is not essential to the new covenant. He says, "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." There is a contrast here. The word BUT makes it clear that the baptism to which Jesus called people would not be with water. Water baptism was a picture of the baptism which was to come, the baptism offered under the new covenant.

Joel 2:28-32 was the Scripture text for Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. It spoke of how in the new covenant God would pour out his spirit on all flesh. It is an internal covenant in which the Law of God is written on the heart. (Jer. 31:33) There is no hint in the Old Testament, that when the new covenant was to come it would involve outward rites, but the prophet Jeremiah gives witness to the fact that it would be a covenant written on the heart. Peter was saying the same thing in 1 Peter 3 (quoting NIV):

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Peter is writing about a clean conscience before the Lord, something which only can happen as we make Christ our Lord IN OUR HEARTS. The waters of the flood are a picture of the baptism which saves us. See??? Water is not intrinsic to baptism, it is the PICTURE of it. Baptism is the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To confuse the two would be like mistaking a baseball card of Mark McGwire for Mark McGwire himself and saying you cannot know Mark McGwire unless you first have his baseball card. The card is a picture, it is not Mark McGwire. Immersion in water is a picture, it is not baptism. If immersion is required then the resurrection of Christ ain't enough. That is a syncretism where we are partly saved by our own works and partly by grace--even though Paul says:

(Eph 2:8-9 NIV) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- {9} not by works, so that no one can boast.

Now if we are saved by a cooperative effort of God's grace and our immersion in water, then Paul is not telling the truth here and deserves to be damned as a heretic. He also said, as I have written,

(1 Cor 1:17 NIV) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Now it is unavoidable that he contrasts here baptism with preaching the gospel. If baptism is part of the plan of salvation, part of the gospel such a contrast cannot be made. If you guys are right he cannot preach the gospel without baptizing. So you must denounce Paul as a deceiver and servant of the Evil One!

In Romans 6:4 we find another text used by immersionists:

(Rom 6:4 NIV) We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Would any of you be stupid enough to argue that the time we spend under the water is what he means by "buried". That is really FOS! What he is talking about here is living a new life in Chrsit contrasted to the old life of sin. The meaning of Romans 6:4 is the same as what Paul says to the Galatians:

(Gal 6:14-15 NIV) May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. {15} Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

This is the same as Romans 6:4, in one he uses the metaphor of baptism, in the other the metaphor of crucifixion, but he is saying the same thing. Note also in verse 15 that circumcision is of no avail. If you guys are right about water baptism, then all the new covenant has done is substitute immersion in water for the cutting of the foreskin. Less painful, for sure :), but that would really represent no advance in godliness at all. Circumcision was itself a picture of what God wanted to do in the human heart, and so is baptism. But neither rite is required, or Paul is in error when he writes in Romans 2:14-29. I have no doubt that Paul would have insisted that this same line of thought applied to water baptism. Why would a God of grace substitute the requirement for one ritual instead of another and then withhold grace to those who do not do the ritual, that isn't grace!!

All of this is without mentioning all the times which baptism takes on a figurative meaning:

Mark 10:37-39 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

Luke 12:49-51 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!

Matthew 3:10-12 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Mark 1:7-9 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Mark 10:37-39 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

Mark 10:39 Mark 10 Mark 10:38-40 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,

Luke 3:15-17 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John 1:32-34 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, `The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Acts 1:5 Acts 1 Acts 1:4-6 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 11:16 Acts 11 Acts 11:15-17 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

1 Corinthians 10:1-3 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ABOVE VERSES USE THE TERM "BAPTISM" METASPHORICALLY AND NOT IN REFERENCE TO WATER BAPTISM, ERGO, THE WORD ITSELF DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WATER BAPTISM IN ALL CASES.

As far as the "one baptism" of Eph 4 goes, I have made clear this is not water baptism. If it is water baptism, then we are basing our unity on that rather than the Holy Spirit, who we find in 1 Cor 12:13 baptizes us into one body. How can water baptism make us one? After all, unity is the entire thrust of Eph 4, as I posted to Danny a few days ago. If the baptism Jesus administers is not water baptism, and the Scripture makes that clear, then after Pentecost why would Paul go back and make water baptism the "one baptism"? That is ludicrous.

I also await someoneone who can demonstrate to me that water baptism is how sins are washed away and that we cannot receive salvation without it.

As far as hermeneutics, a certain amount of hermeneutics is intuitive...we must ask with any principle we read in scripture whether other passages contrast with it in such a way that the meaning cannot be literal without avoiding contradiction. All of the passages I have referred to here have made clear that water baptism is not essential to salvation. I have not merely asserted, I have demonstrated.

Now I am not in a position to require you brethren to agree with anything here...but neither are you in a position to make requirements of me. If we can continue to fellowship and dailogue as brothers and sisters in Christ, well. If you wish to not have me here on the basis of my theology, I will not lose anything. Just let me know. But I have stated in clear, concise, and to the honest, I think convincing form, why I believe what I do about water baptism. I think it very unfair to be judged the way I am. I will gladly take leave it the forum so desires.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

CG,

I am going to respond to you soon but let me say quickly that I did not say that you were shallow, I believe you are wrong but not shallow. I said that your reasons were shallow and I will explain more when I have more time. I would like to now but truly do not have the time.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

Bro Lee, you write:

And you over look the fact that when Phillip was sent to preach to the eunuch that the Holy Spirit operated upon Phillip, the preacher, leading him to go to the eunuch and preach Jesus to him. And in the process of hearing the preaching of Jesus, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, the eunuch learned that he must be baptized IN WATER. And when they came upon certain water he said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” And they went down, both Phillip and the eunuch into the water and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35- 40). Therefore immersion in water was a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ.

I respond--that is the point I was making! If it is true, as you claim, that "Therefore immersion in water was a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ"

Then it is also true, as I have said,

(1 Cor 1:17 NIV) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Now it is unavoidable that he contrasts here baptism with preaching the gospel. If baptism is part of the plan of salvation, part of the gospel such a contrast cannot be made. If you guys are right he cannot preach the gospel without baptizing. So you must denounce Paul as a deceiver and servant of the Evil One!

You cannot have it both ways. If baptism by immersion is part of preaching the gospel, then Paul did not faithfully preach the Gospel. He thanked God that he only baptized a few. But if as you say, "Therefore immersion in water was a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ" then Paul was unfaithful to Christ in him ministry to the Romans. He should rather have been lamenting the fact that he did not baptize. That is unavoidable.

Lee, you write:

In fact, there is no record that anyone other than the apostles and the House of Cornelius was ever baptized in the Holy Spirit.

But this contradicts the Scripture itself.

(1 Cor 12:13 NRSV) For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Every believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit. So you are mistaken, but your sincerity is both noted and appreciated.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I re-post from a June 3rd post:

I am indeed glad to hear that you accept the fact that the early church, while under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, practiced water baptism. However you seem to over look the simple fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they practiced water baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since it is sin that Christ died to save us from it follows that no one will be saved until their sins are remitted. And Christ commanded baptism for this purpose and thus for our salvation. This is the reason he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

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

You're slipping on the 'eis' in Acts again, and in that portion of Mark which is not in the earliest manuscripts.

"Because of"

"Because of"

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Connie,

The Greek word "eis" is not the word "because." You do not know of what you speak. The word "gar" get translated as "for" and it means "because of" but "eis" means "into."

Lets look at a couple of eis verses:

Rom 10:10 "for with the heart a person believes, resulting BECAUSE OF righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting BECAUSE OF salvation." Sound silly? It should.

Mt 15:17 17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes BECAUSE OF the stomach, and is eliminated?

Mt 19:5 "and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECAUSE OF ONE FLESH'?"

Mk 1:39 "And He went into their synagogues BECAUSE OF all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons."

Mk 3:29 "but whoever blasphemes BECAUSE OF the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

Acts 4:3 "And they laid hands on them and put them BECAUSE OF jail until the next day, for it was already evening.

This one has an interesting meaning with Connie's definition: Rom 5:18 "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation BECAUSE OF all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life BECAUSE OF all men."

Connie, the word eis has the meaning of "in order to" do something, i.e., going into something, whether it be into sin, into forgiveness, into salvation, etc. It NEVER has the meaning of "because". It is a word pointing to something else, not looking at the result. The word "gar" on the other hand has exactly the meaning you are trying to give eis. For example, Romans 10:10 uses both eis and gar: "for (gar - because) with the heart a person believes, resulting in (eis - into) righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in (eis - into) salvation."

Please learn something before you try to teach it.

CG, I have a meeting a little later and will respond, as promised after I get back. I hope you read my correction about being shallow. The only attack intended was against your statements, which you are free to do (and have done) with mine. Later.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Yes Scott

I am sorry I mistook your intent. I will assume all lis meant in well-spirited debate and not personal.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Connie has reposted from my previous post of June 3rd correctly as follows:

“I re-post from a June 3rd post: I am indeed glad to hear that you accept the fact that the early church, while under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, practiced water baptism. However you seem to over look the simple fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they practiced water baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since it is sin that Christ died to save us from it follows that no one will be saved until their sins are remitted. And Christ commanded baptism for this purpose and thus for our salvation. This is the reason he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which she replies as follows:

:You're slipping on the 'eis' in Acts again, and in that portion of Mark which is not in the earliest manuscripts. "Because of" "Because of"”

Now I do hope that all will notice that Connie offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove her absurd and completely false assertion that the word “eis” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. And I want you to notice that she did not post again my initial and often repeated post concerning this matter. It is a post containing arguments on that matter that not one single person, including Connie, has bothered to answer! She is just hoping that everyone will forget those facts that cannot be successfully denied by anyone. But for her benefit and for the benefit of all our readers I will now, post again those words again now for the fourth time and ask that those, including Connie, who find any error in them to come forward and prove that they are incorrect.

I wrote these words for John Wilson and received no response. I wrote them also for Mr. C who responded that it was John that made the argument and that he would not answer it. I repeated them again for Mr. Hanson and he has not even attempted to touch the actual arguments that I have made. And Connie has been here through all of the times that this post has been repeated and not once has she bothered to give a genuine response to it either.

Therefore we repeat it yet again without changing it since we had presented it to Mr. Hanson. Because in the past I have taken the trouble to go through it and remove the names of the last person to who I repeated it. But since I am being called upon to repeat it so often and no one has bothered to even attempt an answer to it I will not go through that much trouble again. I say this so that everyone will know that I am posting it again for Connie’s sake. Mr. Hanson has had plenty of time and opportunity to respond to this post but has failed to do so. And so have John Wilson and Mr. C and others who have been in this forum during the several times that this post has been repeated.

SO, Connie, we are asking you, or anyone else to specifically respond to every point made in this particular post and show us just how we are “slipping again on the Greek word “eis”” as you have now falsely claimed.

“Now, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by Thayer tells us the meaning of this word. I will quote his exact words on this subject and give the exact page reference where all can read what he actually said. Joeseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows: “ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94). There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”. Now, that is actually what Thayer had to say about it with the exact reference from his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with the exact page number where even those who do not understand Greek can find his words and read them. Now in this quotation it is obvious to any reader that he gives the meaning of the Greek word “eis” a sense completely contrary to what you have claimed. In other words he says that it means “to obtain” while you prefer that read “because of”.

Thus far all we have is your word that the Greek word “EIS” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” "because of" instead of “to obtain”. Yet is strange that in our day of modern translations which have “better” translations as their purpose no scholar has been willing to put his reputation on the line and give us this “better” translation that Mr. Hanson would like to have. Does it make you wonder why? As far as I am aware there is not even a Calvinist Scholar that is willing to attempt such a translation. It does make one wonder why, doesn’t it?

The exact same words and grammar and syntax found in Acts 2:38 is also found in Matthew 26:28. In Matthew 26:28 we are told, “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many unto (eis) the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38 we read, “Repent ye and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Anyone can see that the two phrases “unto (eis) remission of sins” are identical in English. They are also identical in the Greek. In Greek both passages read, “eis apheisen harmartion”. It is exactly the same and the word eis has the same meaning in both passages. In Matthew 26:28 we are told that Christ blood was shed “unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Now who is ready to claim that Christ shed his blood “because” our sins were already remitted? Christ shed his blood clearly “in order to obtain” remission of our sins and this exact same phraseology is used when speaking of repentance and baptism. We are to repent in order to obtain remission of our sins not “because “ our sins have been remitted without repentance. And we are also to be baptized according to this verse for the same reason. We are baptized “to obtain” to use Thayer’s exact words, the remission of sins. And while you claim that the word “eis” can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38, it is indeed interesting that you cannot find a single reputable translation that so translates it. And you have not given any reputable scholars that define this word so as to justify such a translation.

Yet, we are just supposed to take your word for it. Do tell us how you would translate this Greek word “eis” in Matthew 26:28? And if you would translate it differently than the way you claim it could be translated in Acts 2:38, please explain the reason since both phrases are exactly identical in the Greek and English New Testaments. If you believe that Matthew 26:28 means, “to obtain” and Acts 2:38 means “because of” please explain why. The phrase under consideration is, “eis aphesin hamartion” It is exactly the same words, syntax, tense, mood, and grammar in both places. There is no difference whatsoever but unless you translate it the same way in both passages you will have it as a "causal" sense in one place and a “resultant" sense in the other. And if you translate this word differently in these two verses we will expect you to explain how you arrived at completely different conclusions concerning the exact same phraseology in two different places.

I am placing the two passages parallel to each other so that all can see that they are identical. Matthew 26:28, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion) Acts 2:38, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion). Same phrase, same grammar, same syntax, and same words, but different meanings? Many people would translate the word differently for absolutely no better reason than the simple fact that in one place it does not fit their favorite theology and in the other place it does. So do tell us Mr. Hanson, which way is it for you? Do you translate “eis” in Matthew 26:28 the same way that you would like to have it translated in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 we read, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (Eis) the remission of sins and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word “kai” is a coordinating conjunction. And functions like our English word “and” which connects items of equal rank in a sentence. Whatever “eis” means in reference to baptism it also means in reference to repentance. Now no one is told anywhere in the New Testament to repent “because” his or her sins have been remitted. But if your view of “eis” in this passage were correct then it would be necessary to conclude that are to repent “because” our sins have been remitted. Which is contrary to the teaching of Acts 3:19 which says, “ repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.” Thus we repent in order to have our sins blotted out. So which is it? Does “eis” mean “because of” in reference to baptism and in the exact same time and place and grammatical construction does “eis” mean “in order to" in reference to repentance? For this word cannot have two meanings in the same place and grammatical connection.

Do you believe that these Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to “ REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” for (eis) because their sins were remitted or do you believe that they were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. Or is it possible that you are asking us to believe that they were told to “repent” in order to the remission of sins AND be baptized “because of the remission of sins?" Pick one. For surely it must be at least one of these three cases. Which one do you believe is the truth using the Greek words, syntax, and grammar of this sentence? It is definitely true that whatever “eis” means in reference to “repentance” it also means in reference to “baptism.” It cannot GRAMMATICALLY have one meaning in reference to “REPENTANCE” and a completely opposite meaning in reference to “BAPTISM” in the same sentence and the same connection using the same rules of grammar.

The great scholars who have translated the word of God for us just did not hold your view of the use of this word in its grammatical connection in Acts 2:38, now did they?

I have only a short time but here are some quotes from various recognized scholars for all to consider when studying Acts 2:38 and the meaning of the Greek term ‘eis’ in relation to repentance and baptism for remission of sins. Joseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows: “ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.”(A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94.) There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”. But Mr. Hanson would like for us to believe, without giving us any good reason why we should, that the word means “because of”.

In his “Commentary on Acts” Hackett, who was a highly regarded scholar among the Baptist, has said the following concerning the phrase “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38: “ Eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3), we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object, which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

Dr. J. W. Wilmarth, another Baptist scholar of high reputation among the Baptist, says concerning those who interpret the Greek word “eis” as “on account of” which is equivalent to those who translate it as “because of” the following:

“ This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we chose the former. (a) For those who contend for the interpretation “on account of remission” will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said, “repent” as well as “be baptized on account of remission of sins.” This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever “repent” and “be baptized”, and deny that “eis” expresses the relation of “metanoesate” as well as “baptistheto” to “eis aphesin hamartion”. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It “enforces the entire exhortation, not one portion of it to the exclusion of the other,” as Hackett says.”

According to D. A. Penwick, Professor of classical languages, University of Texas, says, “ Normally ‘eis’ looks forward, and I know of no case in the New Testament where it looks back” Robinson says, “ with adjuncts marking the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly ‘eis’ c. acc/ to baptize or be baptized into a thing…”

Mr. Winer recognized as being one of the greatest Greek grammarians who ever lived says of this word in Acts 2:38: “ the purpose and end in view” Acts 2:38. Tus the purpose and end in view of repentance and baptism according to this scholar is the remission of sins. But Mr. Hanson wants so badly to believe that we are baptized because our sins have been forgiven that he just cannot accept the truth about the meaning of this word in acts 2:38 and must change it to suit himself.

H. A. W. Meyer, a German scholar, “Eis denotes the object of the baptism which is the remission of guilt contracted in the state before repentance.”

Charles B. Williams, Baptist Translator of the New Testament and student of Edgar J. Goodspeed, had this to say in the Williams translation of the New Testament, “ that your sins may be forgiven” Acts 2:38.

Olshausen says, “ Baptism is accompanied with the remission of sins, ‘eis aphesin hamartion’ as a result. Carl H. Morgan, who was Dean of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “ I do not know of any Greek Lexicon which gives to ‘eis’ the meaning of ‘because of’.” Now can anyone bring a single, recognized Greek – English Lexicon, which gives to ‘eis’, Acts 2:38, the meaning of “because of”?

Now, the above quotations are just a few of many scholars that tell us that the Greek word ‘eis’ DOES NOT MEAN “because of”. But Mr. Hanson, with no evidence to support or justify his doing so comes along and tells us that it means “because of”. And he does so with no better reason that the fact that the word in Acts 2:38 does not fit his theories, and his wishes that it could be translated “because of”. He does this to avoid the inescapable conclusion that Peter told us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that baptism had equal standing with repentance in the plan of salvation. This is a fact that Mr. Hanson is unwilling to admit but his attempt to avoid it is feeble and without the slightest support from reputable and objective scholars who do not have his theological bias. There is little doubt among the objective and candid observers that “eis" was and is used in the New Testament to convey the idea of “to obtain” remission of sins rather than Mr. Hanson’s "highly desirable" but extremely doubtful idea of “because our sins were remitted”.

But there is a Greek word that can be and is often translated “because”. And that Greek word is “gar”. WE find it in Galatians 3:26,27 where we are told, “For we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (gar) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3: 26, 27). But Mr. Hanson did not want to talk about the “because” in this verse for that is diametrically opposed to his theory. For here in this verse we have Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saying that we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE we have put on or been clothed with Christ in baptism. And if this was the Greek word “eis” instead of (gar) we would probably hear all sorts of excuses about why it should not be translated “because” in this verse. Just as I predict that Mr. Hanson might like do in reference to the use of the word “eis” in Matthew 26:28 where it is likely that he will not give “eis” the same meaning as he wants to give to it in Acts 2:38. Because doing so would put him in the absurd position of claiming that Christ died “because our sins were already forgiven” rather than in order to obtain the remission of our sins for us. If our sins were already forgiven then there would have been no need for the death of Christ.

I predict that we will soon move away, as most knowledgeable Baptist and Calvinist have seen the need to do, from this absurd view that the Greek word “eis” can be translated “because”. No one has ever so translated it and it is never used in this sense in the New Testament as far as any reputable, unbiased scholar is concerned. Mr. Hanson is simply helpless on the meaning of this word, now isn’t he Brethren? But we wait to see just how he might be able to answer our question as to how and why and on what authority he took it upon himself to change the word of God. For he has surely changed it in this verse to read repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because our sins are forgiven”. It most assuredly says no such thing and those who have any respect for the word of God will not accept this deliberate revision by the uninspired Mr. Hanson.”

Now Brethren and Friends, instead of waiting for Mr. Hanson to answer or John Wilson to answer we now ask Connie to answer or anyone else that thinks that the above facts are not true to anwser.

Then Connie says:

“and in that portion of Mark which is not in the earliest manuscripts.”

Connie is not really competent to discuss this matter Brethren. She has cannot even deal with our arguments on the subject of the meaning of the Greek word “eis” much less discuss with any amount of reason and knowledge this particular subject. But I will just say here that she is not exactly accurate in this statement that she has made. For it is not left out of ALL of our earliest manuscripts. And it is by no means the only portions of God’s word that is left out of those manuscripts. For example the Vatican Manuscript leaves out the so- called “Pastoral Epistles, I Timothy and 2 Timothy, Titus, The last half of the book of Hebrews from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of the book and the Book of Revelation. But I do not hear her speaking as if those “portions” of Scripture are not a part of God’s word, do you? It is just the passage that she does not like that she wants to discredit and remove. She also overlooks the simple fact that None of the translators have seen fit to actually remove those passages from the text, now have they? They have only decided to put some footnotes indicating that these particular Manuscripts do not have them. But no one is confident that the absence of these verses from most our oldest manuscripts is not sufficient evidence to discount them as not originally a part of the word of God. I will quote something from Mr. Tischendorf who discovered the “Sianatic Manuscript” speaking of the Washington Manuscript as well as the other two manuscripts from the fourth century as follows. “Unfortunately, we have no Biblical Manuscripts coming down to us from the first three centuries of our era. From the fourth century when Christendom emerged victorious from the persecutions, we possess only three Manuscripts, one of which has now found a resting place in our national museum”. The one, which is found in our national museum, is the Manuscript that is called the “Washington” Manuscript. And it dates from the fourth century as Mr. Tishendorf, who discovered the Sianatic Manuscript, has stated. And it contains the entire 16th chapter of Mark in it and that includes verses 9-20 wherein we find the words of our savior, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

Now, Connie, when you do not like what a portion of God’s word says and you cannot answer it you come along trying to make people believe that it is not God’s word! What a pathetic tactic for one who claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit! She does not tell you how that we do not possess any of the Original Manuscripts but that we do have some fourth century copies of Manuscripts. And she also does not tell you that their condition is not such that we can tell with absolute certainty what was in them before they decayed. And she does not tell you that at least one of them was not even completed but that there was sufficient room in the book of Mark for the copyist to have recorded Mark 16:9-20. But it is rather left as a “blank page” with enough room provided for those words to have been put into it. It was as if the scribe had not quite finished his work. So that these manuscripts are complete and reliable in ALL respects is far from the truth.

And neither does she tell you that these “oldest Manuscripts”, because thwey are not complete because either the scribe left the work unfinished or the decay over the years had destroyed much of what was there, are not the final word on whether any portion of Scripture is authentic and belongs in the text. She fails also to notice that of all of the ancient Versions (or translations of the scriptures into other languages), some of which date back to the first half of the second century, Contain Mark 16:9-20 in the text. Any translation dating back that far may have had original manuscripts or more current copies of them than our oldest manuscripts from which they were translated and that they would have most likely been far more reliable than our oldest manuscript Copies from the fourth century, in their present condition of decay and incompleteness as we examine them today.

Neither does she say anything about the fact all of the church fathers as far back as the second half of the second century, with the exception of Eusebius, quote from Mark 16:9-20. If it were not in the text at that time how would they have quoted those words? And she does not say anything about the Church catalogs and calendars dating back to the same century as our oldest manuscripts contain quotations of this text. Which is an indication that there were some texts in the same time period as our oldest manuscripts that must have contained these words.

Now, as I have said before, a discussion of this matter in great detail is one that would involve far more time than most are willing to give to it. But we are hearing this nonsense too often for it to be ignored. Suffice it to say now that there is ample evidence to support the authenticity and genuineness of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark. And I would be happy to discuss the matter with anyone competent to do so that is willing to take the time and effort to do so and will be required to respond to EVERY POINT made. This is a subject that should be reserved for a written discussion without interruptions from the “lurkers” until it is complete for the sake of clarity. But I am affirming that the evidence to support Mark 16:16 is overwhelming and is far greater that the simple “foot notes” in your modern versions of the Bible leave you to believe. But rest assured that just because these verses are not found in two out of three of our oldest manuscripts has not been sufficient evidence to persuade a single translation of any repute to actual REMOVE those words from the text. And the reason is that the evidence for the verses is far superior to the evidence against it. But to be honest with the public, which I agree that our translators should be, they have made footnotes to inform us that these verses are not found in two out of three of our oldest manuscripts.

Now, until someone is willing to discuss this matter in great detail over time with me I will simply henceforth continue to respond, as I have, with the fact that the evidence that these verses belong in your Bibles is sufficient for all to accept them. And that evidence is indeed significant enough to have prevented their removal. And none of this takes into account the discussion of the text that has anonther ending, nor any discussion of the abrupt and unnatural ending of the book of Mark at the eighth verse. Read the Mark 16:8 and just try to immagine if the author of any inspired Book ever ended his words so abruptly. Friends read it for yourself and ask if it would make any sense to you if the book were to have such an ending?

But just because Connie does not like what these verses say is by no means sufficient reason that we should doubt them, now is it? And she gives us no real discussion or accurate arguments further than the footnotes that she finds in her favorite version of the scriptures. In fact, I do sincerely doubt if she even owns a copy of a reputable and widely recognized and accepted version of the scriptures that exclude them.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Lee

Thanks for your exhaustive work. I believe your exegesis of Acts 2:38, as I have stated before, is right on the money. There is no doubt in my mind that Peter said and meant the phrase “eis apheisen harmartion” EXACTLY as you have interpreted it. My question is whether he continued to hold this same exact view later in his ministry. I think not, you brothers think so. OK. I may or may not be correct. But your thoroughness is commendable and I want to express my appreciation.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Lee, when you write:

Well, then I cannot understand why we are having this discussion. For if you do not oppose baptizing persons “for the remission of sins” as commanded by the apostle Peter through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38) then why do you at every mention of the subject insist that baptism has nothing to do with water and nothing to do with the remission of our sins and nothing to do with obedience to the gospel? Is it possible that you are claiming that you do not “oppose the practice” so long as it is not done in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

My response is that I have not said baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins. I have only stated that immersion in water has nothing to do with the remission of sins. I still insist that no one has demonstrated that our sins are washed away in water baptism. That is more of an assertion than a certainty, as I see it.

Let me tell you no one believes in baptism more than the Quakers. As Elton Trueblood said--we believe in it so much we refuse to get sidetracked into the administrative details of how it works since it is the baptism of the Spiprit that incorporates us into Christ in the first place.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

OK CG, Let's do this.

I would ask first that you read an article I wrote located at http://www.cccflorida.org/BHS.htm. It will give you a major understanding of what I believe is the Biblical view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tongues.

You have mixed the old and new covenants in your defense of your position. The new covenant (the covenant of the Kingdom) began on the Day of Pentecost (You may want to get into a discussion on what the Kingdom is - it is the Church). When Jesus forgave sin He was doing so before the Old Covenant (from now on abbr as OC)had ended, so trying to use His words to defend your position is naive, at best.

I do not disagree that the word baptism is at times metaphorical, but that does not change the normal usage. The normal usage ALLOWS the word to be used metaphorically. You say that baptism is an OC thing itself, well so is repentance and confession - so what? When Peter preached the first Gospel sermon convincing the people of the attrocity of their sin, they asked "What must we do?" Did they believe? Obviously they did else they wouldn't have asked the question. Had they been baptized by the Holy Spirit? No. Because Peter's answer was to "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (Connie, this word is eis=into) the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Notice they must first repent AND be baptized after they believed and once that was done (or when that was done) they would be "into" the forgiveness of their sins and would also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter never said that the Holy Spirit would baptize them. The Holy Spirit comes AFTER repentance and baptism. I shall defer to my article about upon whom and for what purpose was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Now, You seem to think that Peter was mistaken when he said this. I'm sorry to question your authority, but Peter's authority was greater than yours. Listen to what Jesus told him and the others (minus Judas): "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.'" John 20:21-23. In the same way Jesus had been sent from the Father, with full authority, this is how Jesus sent out the Apostles, with full authority. Don't believe it was FULL authority? Look again, "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." They had the authority to forgive sins and only God has that authority (no I'm not saying they were gods). Read the Lord's Prayer in John 17:14ff. Jesus gave the apostles HIS WORDS! Now, you don't believe Peter could've been correct because it bumps against what you believe and have been taught - sorry, but I'm sticking with Peter. I cannot believe he flubbed up probably the most important questioned ever asked him that didn't come from our Lord.

I'm not limiting the Holy Spirit, as you said. It's theology 101 that God cannot be in the presence of sin. Even in the Tabernacle and later the Temple the High Priest before he entered into the Holy of Holies (the presence of God) he had to have his own sacrifice and ceremonially cleansed himself. When we become Christians, we have the presence of God within our lives. He can only enter there when those sins have been cleansed, which is consistent with what I have said about Acts 2:38. It is also consistent with every conversion account we have in the Scriptures. You belittle baptism greatly by calling it a bath. No one on this forum (that I know of) thinks that the water itself is what cleanses the sin. The water is simply a symbolic way of demonstrating what is actually taking place at baptism. As Col 2 teaches so clearly, it is the working of God.

You asked what if there was no water for the Ethiopean Eunuch? Hey, What if aliens from outer space showed up and took Philip away in verse 8:39? What if Noah took T-Rex on the ark? Come on! Deal with the facts instead of hypothetical situations.

I disagree with you strongly on the location of sin. It is not in my heart, it is in the mind of God. It is not until God sees me as sinless then I actually am. I am not guilty of sin because my heart is bad (although heart disease runs in my family), I am guilty because I have offended an absolutely holy God.

I also get tired of seeing I Peter 3:21 get so abused. The Flood (which, btw, was a literal historical event) is an antitype of baptism. "Anti" may mean either BEFORE or SUBSTITUTE and "type" is a shadowing. The Flood was an early shadow of baptism. In what way? In that the flood removed all unrighteousness from the earth, in the same way, when we are baptized all unrighteousness is removed in our life (in the mind of God), i.e., He now views us as absolutely righteous. I would like to add that it's not because the water itself makes God view us that way, but that we had the faith do what He commanded us to do. We do not save ourselves - God saves us by cleansing us. Baptism, as you atated, is an appeal to God for a clear conscience. Of course it is! Because we are appealing God for His forgiveness AT BAPTISM. It is a very far jump to try and take water out of I Peter 3:21 when Peter is basing what he said upon the greatest water event of all history. Come on, CG. Use that knowledge of hermeneutics. Have eyes to see.

OK, that's my response to the first post I told you I would respond to. I'll do more later but my fingers are tired. I don't know how E. Lee does it.

One other thing before I say goodnight. The reference you make to I Cor 1:17 which says "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." Notice that Paul did baptize a few that were there and, if you'll take your spiritualizing bias out of the way, you'll see that, in context, he is pointing out that only a few could claim that they were of the sect of Paul. They were obviously trying to one-up each other with the celebrity of the one who baptized them. It does not matter WHO does the baptizing but this passage you try to use as a proof-text against baptism actually demonstrates just the opposite. They were all baptized.

Goodnight.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Scott

That was a good post. Unfortunately (because of what I know about hermeneutics) I am not convinced. With all due respect, I still do not think you have done any more than assert that sins are cleansed at water baptism. And the question I asked about being 300 miles from water is pertinent. Surely the early Christian missionaries did not take enough water with them to baptize in places where there was no water. (Just think of the newspaper Ad: Honest Sam's camel lot and used baptistry emporium.)

If water baptism is essential to salvation (which it is certainly not) then if you have no access to water you have no access to salvation. Like I said, who needs a God like that? That would make God just as capricious as the God of the calvinist.

When you say:

Baptism, as you atated, is an appeal to God for a clear conscience. Of course it is! Because we are appealing God for His forgiveness AT BAPTISM. It is a very far jump to try and take water out of I Peter 3:21 when Peter is basing what he said upon the greatest water event of all history. Come on, CG. Use that knowledge of hermeneutics. Have eyes to see.

I reply:

Exactly. But Peter takes water out of the picture when he says "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." The water symbolizes the baptism that saves us. Water is extrinsic to baptism, not intrinsic to it, else Peter would have to say something like, "The waters of baptism save us" or "we are saved when we are baptised in water." He never says such.

E Lee, when I say I do not oppose the practice of water baptism, I mean that. I have been baptized, I have baptized people. WHAT I OPPOSE IS THE NOTION THAT IMMERSION IN WATER IS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. The Bible makes no such claim, Acts 2:38 notwithstanding. In Acts 2:38 we have Luke, recording under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what Peter said. That is not the same as saying Peter's words were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You are a preacher and so am I. Do you ever make statements in sermons which are basically right but not under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Let us not hold the NT preachers to any higher standard than we hold ourselves.

Scott

I am not sure I understand the statement:

I disagree with you strongly on the location of sin. It is not in my heart, it is in the mind of God. It is not until God sees me as sinless then I actually am. I am not guilty of sin because my heart is bad (although heart disease runs in my family), I am guilty because I have offended an absolutely holy God.

If sin is in the mind of God, then God is not holy. The Scripture gives ample witness that the human heart is the seat of sin and that is where cleansing needs to take place by the blood of Jesus.

I must say I am enjoying the discussion. If this is sharpening the wits of you brethren like it is mine, I thank God. I pledge to avoid a hostile tone, the Lord being my helper.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

CG:

You have said:

“E Lee, when I say I do not oppose the practice of water baptism, I mean that. I have been baptized, I have baptized people. WHAT I OPPOSE IS THE NOTION THAT IMMERSION IN WATER IS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. The Bible makes no such claim, Acts 2:38 notwithstanding.”

I understand that such is your position, CG, but that is not what is taught in the word of God. The Bible does, without question, not only in Acts 2:38 but in numerous other places we have spoken of in detail of the past few months in this forum teach just that. It teaches that baptism prompted by faith in Christ and following repentance of our sins and confession of faith in Him is indeed essential to our salvation. For if baptism is indeed, “For the remission of sins” then it would truly be essential to our salvation, would it not? In Fact Acts 2:38 not only says to “be baptized” for the remission of sins. It says “repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins”. Thus baptism is just as essential to the remission of sins as is repentance. I do not believe that you would contend that repentance is not essential to remission of sins, would you? And I do not believe that you would contend that remission of sins is not essential to our salvation, would you? For we are told that the “wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Therefore if repentance and baptism is for the remission of sins then it would follow that it is therefore essential to our salvation from sin and their consequences. Thus the Bible does indeed claim that baptism, which is an immersion in water as far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, is essential to salvation.

And according to several other passages it is essential to salvation. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21). And Saul was told by Ananias, “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. (Act 22;16). And Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). Here belief and baptism are given equal importance in relation to our salvation by the use of the coordinating conjunction “And” in English which functions the same as the coordinating conjunction “kai” in the Greek. Those conjunctions connect things of equal rank and importance in a sentence. Belief AND baptism are given equal rank and importance in relation to our salvation in Mark 16:16 and is therefore essential to salvation according to Jesus Christ.

Then you say:

“ In Acts 2:38 we have Luke, recording under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what Peter said. That is not the same as saying Peter's words were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

I am happy to see that you agree that Luke wrote the book of Acts by “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. Because it is the inspired Luke who tells us that Peter was speaking on the day of Pentecost by “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. For it is he that records Peter’s words and declares that he, along with the other apostles, spoke “as the spirit gave them utterance”. Read his inspired words, CG, and you will see why it is an inescapable truth that Peter was “speaking as the spirit gave him utterance” or in other words, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4). And this included the apostle Peter. Therefore, according to the inspired LUKE, Peter spoke, “as the spirit gave him utterance”. And hence his words were just as inspired when they were spoken as they were when Luke recorded them by inspiration that we might have a permanent and inspired record of his inspired words in Acts 2:38 as well as the rest of the chapter. Thus the words of Peter in Acts 2:38 are just as inspired as was Luke, who was the inspired writer of that book and every other word in the book of Acts.

And tell me, CG, is this the real issue with Acts 2:38? If we were to be able to prove to you, as we have done in our above comments, that Acts 2:38 was in fact the words which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to through the apostle Peter would it make any difference in your thinking? For how could the Holy Spirit reveal this truth and later change his mind as you claim Peter did? I have no doubts that Peter as well as any other man speaking from the thoughts of his own mind with no guidance from the Holy Spirit might have misunderstood some things which he later learned more about and would change what he taught accordingly. But Peter was not speaking from his own reasoning but rather “as the Spirit gave him utterance”! The Holy Spirit knows all truth and was to guide the apostles into all the truth (John 16:13; 14:26). Which is exactly what he did through Peter on the day of Pentecost according to the inspired Luke. Therefore Peter would have been perfectly right while speaking as the “spirit gave him utterance” and there would have been no need for him to later “change his position” because he had learned something was wrong with his initial teaching on the matter, now would he? For it was not Peter that spoke but that the Holy Spirit that spoke in Peter, now wasn’t it?

Then you say:

“ You are a preacher and so am I. Do you ever make statements in sermons which are basically right but not under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

Well, you complement me too highly to say that I am a preacher but I appreciate it. And I can tell you that I have never spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and neither have you or anyone else in this forum or in the world today. But that is a different issue altogether. But if I ever did speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or “as the spirit gave me utterance” (Acts 2:4). It would not be me that was speaking but the spirit of God speaking through me. And He, I am sure you will agree, is never wrong, not ever! “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt:10:19,20). And Stephen’s speech, given in Acts the seventh Chapter, is another example of speaking as the “spirit gave them utterance”.

And again, “But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” (Mark 13:11).

Therefore we have proven that Luke was inspired to record the words of Peter which, according to Luke’s inspired record were spoken “as the spirit gave him utterance” (Acts 2:4). And that since this is true it was not Peter that was speaking but the “spirit that was speaking in Him”.

Peter preached the gospel and we are told, “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:25) The gospel is not the words of Peter or any other man that preaches it. It is the “word of the Lord” that “endureth forever”.

And this fits perfectly what Peter had to say about the inspiration of the Prophets of the Old Testament when he said, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21). And this is exactly how Peter spoke for he spoke “as the spirit gave him utterance” (Acts 2: 4) just as the prophets of old spoke “ as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. And that is how we received the words of Acts 2:38 which again says, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38). And our sins must be remitted or we will die in our sins. (Rom. 6:23). Remission of sins is essential to our salvation and repentance and baptism are essential to the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) therefore repentance and baptism are essential to our salvation.

And then you say:

“ Let us not hold the NT preachers to any higher standard than we hold ourselves.”

Oh, my friend we do not hold them, as mere men, to any higher standard at all. But we do not, as you appear to be suggesting, hold the words of the Spirit of God to the same “standards” as we hold our own words! And the words “uttered” by Peter in Acts 2:38 were given “as the Spirit gave him the utterance of them”. Therefore it was the spirit of God that spoke the words of Acts 2:38 through the mouth of Peter and guided the writing hand of Luke in the accurate recording of them. And therefore those words, since they were spoken “as the spirit gave them utterance” through Peter were indeed inspired words, accurate when spoken and never needed to be changed. They are therefore the absolute truth spoken BY PETER AS THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE HIM UTTERANCE. Let us not lower the Holy Spirit to the level of our imperfect, weak, feeble and stumbling standards as you appear to be attempting to do in your assertion that Peter did not speak from inspiration when he uttered the words of Acts 2:38!

For are we not told, “For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8,9).

Let us remember the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, “O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jeremiah 10:23). And let us be directed by the word of God received from the Spirit of God as he gave the apostles “utterance to them” and he moved inspired men like Luke to record them without error. And let us be able to say, “Speak Lord thy servant heareth” and submit to all that he commands. Let us obey the word of God for it is true and right and without error. And it says for us to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). And let us believe that we will receive the remission of Sins as God promised through the inspired words of Peter.

And let us follow the admonition to “Continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine” (Acts 2:42). For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Hello, CG.

I re-post to comment:

E Lee, when I say I do not oppose the practice of water baptism, I mean that. I have been baptized, I have baptized people. WHAT I OPPOSE IS THE NOTION THAT IMMERSION IN WATER IS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. The Bible makes no such claim, Acts 2:38 notwithstanding. In Acts 2:38 we have Luke, recording under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what Peter said. That is not the same as saying Peter's words were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You are a preacher and so am I. Do you ever make statements in sermons which are basically right but not under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Let us not hold the NT preachers to any higher standard than we hold ourselves.

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

This is not enough, from the standpoint of the CC/CoC/RM.

You must immerse, and at the VERY SECOND your head breaks the water, you must believe RIGHT THEN that it is for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins. Of course it says you will also receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. But we won't talk about that, will we?

Lee wants to deny the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, while thinking that the ONE BAPTISM (there is only one) is in water instead of by the Spirit from above.

This means that a complete unbeliever would have to submit to immersion with no belief or power in the Spirit whatsoever, or any witness within him/herself that there is, in fact, even the existence of God.

I'll take the being borne from above by the Spirit first, and the immersion in water as a 'demonstration', a 'figure' a 'type' of what actually happened when I had faith and believed.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Lee

Thanks again for a good post. I will make a few comments.

First of all, nowhere do you prove, but merely assert that Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit. (I believe he did, but not in such a way that his own limitations were overridden.) Often times the Bible records quotes of what people say. An example is

(Josh 2:4-5 NIV) But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. {5} At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them."

Now I am not equating Rahab's lie with Peter's sermon. But I can say that in both cases the writer accurately recorded what was said. My point is that in and of itself Peter's quote does not prove anything.

Who of us would want the main thrust of Christian theology defined by our first sermon??? Not me!!! But that is what we do to Peter when we place this much weight on Acts 2:38, more weight than it is intended to bear.

Again, I appreciate thee kind tone with which Lee addresses me. I want all of you to know that, even thought I may be what you guys call Neo-orthodox I love the Lord very much and want to honor him. I know he has saved me, as he has you. But I also believe that as a theological orientation neo-orthodoxy is the most mature form of Christian thinking.

Plus we must remember that since Pentecost we have access to all of the grace and truth of God that the apostles had, and more, for we see the path they marked out for us. Peter definitely was racially prejudiced until Acts 10...so it is not impossible that he may have been slightly errant in Acts 2:38 as well. I am not saying he is or isn't--I am saying you cannot categorically rule out that possibility.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“This is not enough, from the standpoint of the CC/CoC/RM.”

Connie, it is true that anything less than or other than or opposite from the truth of God’s word is “not enough” for Christians. And I have already explained to CG why I do not agree with his statement that you quoted and I await his reasonable reply, which I am sure he will provide. But your comments concerning what we believe is nothing more then pure misrepresentations and they are, in your case, deliberate misrepresentations. And deliberate misrepresentations, Connie, are untruthful and far from helpful to a reasonable discussion of the inspired word of God.

For example you say the following which you know is untrue as follows:

“You must immerse, and at the VERY SECOND your head breaks the water, you must believe RIGHT THEN that it is for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins. Of course it says you will also receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. But we won't talk about that, will we?”

Now, this is far from what the scriptures teach and most certainly not anything that we have ever taught. For we have taught often, and I have said it more than once in this forum, that we are baptized by faith in Christ after we have repented of our sins and confessed that we believe Christ is the Son of God. We have often now referred to the case of the Ethiopian eunuch who upon seeing water after hearing Phillip preach nothing but “Jesus” said, see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized and Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest”. Which means that if one does not first believe with all of his heart that Christ is the Son of God and repent of his sins (Acts 2:38; 8:35-40) baptism will avail him nothing. And we have repeatedly said that there is nothing in the water itself that saves us. But that there is much in the faithful obedience to the command of Christ for us to “believe and be baptized”. And for us to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” that results in the obtaining of the remission of our sins. And all of this is according to the “obedience of Faith” described by Paul in Romans 16:26,27. Faith requires obedience and without works faith is dead. (James 2:18-24). And we are told by James, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. We do not believe that anyone is saved by works only and neither do we believe that anyone is saved by faith only but we do strongly believe that we are saved by the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27). So, we do not teach that “baptism alone” saves us. And neither do we believe that faith alone saves us. But we believe that we are saved by an the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27).

It is long before one even enters the water that we believe that one must believe that it is “for the remission of sins”. And Acts 2:38 is proof of it. For Peter said to those who believed his preaching and had asked the question “men and brethren WHAT SHALL WE DO?” He said to them, “repent and be baptized every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). So if they believed what he said they would have known before they repented and were baptized that it was for the remission of their sins and they would have expected to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And this is what we believe and teach.

Now you imply that we do not want to talk about the gift of the Holy Spirit but by saying this you lie and speak not the truth. I have spoken of it often. I have stated plainly that I believe that this was the gift which they received when the apostles lay their hands upon them as we have the example of in Acts 8:14-25 and Acts 19:1-6. So I believe that Peter was telling them that if they would repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And that they did receive this gift just as the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-25 and as the Ephesians did in Acts 19:1-6 when the apostles laid their hands upon them. I have also made it clear that I do not believe that we receive these gifts today because we do not have any apostles around to lay hands upon us. And because the purpose of those gifts were for the revealation and confirmation of the word of God which has been completed. (1 Cor. 13:8-13;Eph. 4:11; Heb. 2:3,4) and we are now guided and influenced by the Holy Spirit through the word of God that was delivered to us by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. And that the Holy Spirit is present with his Holy Word to lead, guide, strengthen, comfort and support us. (Acts 8:14-25;19:1-6; 1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:17-20).

And therefore you are completely and deliberately misrepresenting what I have said when you say that I am seeking to deny the “power of the Holy Spirit”. I believe very much in the “power of the Holy Spirit” and that the word of God was “revealed and confirmed to us” BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. And that the Holy Spirit is working today through that word. Which we are told is, “quick and powerful and sharper than a two edged sword peircing the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and the joints and the marrow and is a descerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12).

The thing that I have denied is your pretence, and the pretence of anyone today that claims to have the same “powers from the Holy Spirit” that the inspired men of the New Testament times and those upon whom the apostles laid their hands possessed. And that is not denying the “power of the Holy Spirit” but rather the “pretense” of those claiming falsely to have the power of the Holy Spirit today. You have no such powers. And all those in this forum who have made such claims have been completely unable to demonstrate that they have them as did the apostle Paul. For we are told, “And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT AND OF POWER: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:4,5). Now it is obvious that if every Christian actually possessed these same “powers” as the apostles had that Paul would not have needed to “demonstrate these powers” so that they could believe. Because they would be able to “experience” and “demonstrate” these powers themselves and there would have been no reason for Paul to fear that their faith would be in the wisdom of men at all. But he “demonstrated” these powers so that they could believe that his words were in fact from God because they were accompanied by the very power of God as demonstrated by him. This is something that you cannot do, Connie, and no one else in this forum can do this today. But our faith still resides in the “power of the Holy Spirit” demonstrated by those who, like Paul, actually and truthfully had such powers from the Holy Spirit. Our faith cannot and will not reside in those today who are impostors and falsely claim to have those powers without EVER demonstrating them. Now, I am very much aware that many of my own brethren disagree with me slightly concerning what I have written above. But they do not misrepresent me deliberately they merely disagree with me respectfully because they believe, as I do not, that they receive some “non-miraculous” gift of the Spirit automatically upon being baptized and give some good reasons for believing it. And they honestly seek to discuss the matter with me and I have on several occassions answered their questions about it. But none of them believe that I am denying the “power of the Holy Spirit” and those, who are not my brethren, who do so are deliberately doing so because they cannot answer the arguments that I have presented concerning this matter. For this is what some people do when they cannot answer. They just resort to anger and deliberate misrpresentation because they think that by misrepresentation they can hide the obvious fact that they have not dealt squarely with the arguments that they deliberately ignore by entering into deliberate efforts to misrepresent.

Then you continue your deliberate misrepresentation as follows: “Lee wants to deny the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, while thinking that the ONE BAPTISM (there is only one) is in water instead of by the Spirit from above.”

I have no where denied the “power and Presence of the Holy Spirit” with Christians today. I have merely shown that the Holy Spirit has demonstrated his power when He revealed the word of God to us in order that we might have the certain faith that those words are from God. And the Holy Spirit is guiding us today through that word and is present with it and influencing us by it. And I have given good reasons in my post above to demonstrate that the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4 is an immersion in water and no one has answered those arguments. In fact, you do not even mention those arguments at all. So, our readers can see that you have done nothing more than assert without even attempting to prove that your assertions are true. There is nothing in the context of Ephsians 4 or the background of the Ephesian congregation to whom Paul wrote the book of Ephesians that justifies anyone in drawing the conclusion that the one baptism is a “baptism in the Holy Spirit”. This is merely what you would like for it to say but it just does not say.

Then you continue you deliberate misrepresentations by saying:

“This means that a complete unbeliever would have to submit to immersion with no belief or power in the Spirit whatsoever, or any witness within him/herself that there is, in fact, even the existence of God.”

Now, all who have followed the many discussions that I have had in this forum concerning baptism have heard me say many times that “baptism alone without faith in Christ is as useless to your salvation as is faith alone without obedience to Christ in baptism.” I have never said in any place that a “complete unbeliever would have to submit with no belief” in Christ. Scriptural baptism is not for any UNBELIEVER. I would not baptize any person who came to me claiming that he had no faith in Christ. I would refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with such a baptism and I would tell the unbeliever that even if he managed to find someone who would baptize him under those conditions it would not benfit him in any way whatsoever. And I doubt very seriouosly that he could find any true Christian that would baptism him as an unbeliever. The Only persons claiming to be Christians that I know of who baptize unbelievers are those who believe in “infant baptism” for no infant is a believer in Christ. And even they do not really “baptize them because they do not immerse them in water but only sprinkle of pour a little water on their heads which is something completely unheard of in the New Testament.

In fact Christ himself said, “HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED:” (Mark 16:16). This is the truth of the matter. And I have quoted this verse so many times that our readers have most assuredly memorized it by now without even the slightest effort to do so. And in my last post I made an argument about this verse, which you also deliberately ignored. We pointed out that Jesus by using the coordinating conjunction “And” from the coordinating conjunction “kai” in the Greek language which connects things of equal rank and importance in a sentence to connect belief and baptism as being of equal rank in relation to salvation. And this is what we have been teaching for months in this forum. And for you to come in here and deliberately attempt to represent us as teaching that a “complete unbeliever” and even one who does not believe that God exist can be saved by being immersed in water is a deliberate lie. And I know that it is such because you know full well for we have said it too many times for you not to know it that we do not teach any such thing. But you want to represent us falsely in this way because you cannot even begin to answer our arguments.

Do you really think that our readers are oblivious to the fact that you have not even attempted to answer what we have said concerning the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 in reponse to your false assertions concerning the meaning of that word? I am referring to the fact that you accused us of “slipping concerning the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38. And you claimed that it meant “because of remission of sins” instead of “for (or in order to) the remission of sins as every translation has it translated. We responded to that absolute nonsense. And we proved conclusively that the Greek word “eis” does mean For (or unto. Or in order to) the remission of sins. And you have deliberately attempted to avoid any response to that post, now haven’t you? Do you honestly believe that they cannot see that you have not even made the slightest attempt to respond to it? If you do you are woefully mistaken. For they have noticed that you cannot answer those arguments and that as you say, “there is no answer to the truth”.

Then you say:

“I'll take the being borne from above by the Spirit first, and the immersion in water as a 'demonstration', a 'figure' a 'type' of what actually happened when I had faith and believed.”

No Connie, you will not because God will not let you just “take” things the way that you want them to be. For God will save in accordance with what he teaches in his word. And He nowhere teaches that anyone is “Born of the Spirit” the moment that he or she “had faith and believed” as you falsely claim. In fact we are told, “except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5). This is how we are born again and it cannot be done without “water”. He will save them if by the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27) when their faith leads them to obey from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered to them (Romans 6:17,18) and being “THEN made free from sin they become the servants of righteousness”. Now that is how God is going to do it, Connie, according to His word. He is not going to do it as you “take” it or as you prefer it to be done. He will do it as he determined By His own will to do it and in no other way. So, no one should think that they have a choice as to how they are going to be made free from sin. That is God’s choice and we must follow His will, or we will deliberately refuse to follow. But we cannot follow our own preferences as Connie would like to have you believe. For this reason we are told, “And he (Christ) is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM” (Heb. 5:8,9) and he is the one who stated, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

Then Connie says that she wrote her post:

“Respectfully,”

Connie, when will you learn that there is no way in this world for you to “respectfully” deliberately misrepresent someone’s position on any matter. One can mistakenly do so or because of a lack of understanding do so but you have deliberately done so in our case and it is impossible to deliberately lie about others and do so in a “respectful” manner. So, Connie you have not been “respectful” but you have instead deliberately lied to us yet again. And no one who is being “lead by the Holy Spirit” as you falsely claim and tells deliberate lies as you have done in this post is being led by the Holy Spirit to do so. And there is no greater evidence that you are being lead by a “spirit” that is entirely opposed to the Holy Spirit when you lie in this way, Connie. For the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of truth” and not the “father” of deliberate lies. We all know who is the “father of lies” now don’t we? (John 8:44).

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Brother Lee

I just thought more on the thing of having acess to the power of the Holy Spirit. Let me make what I believe is a useful distinction. Most Quakers believe in "continuing revelation." I do not like this term because it creates false connotations that place our subjective experiences on par with the Scriptures--and even though I do not have a "high" enough view of Scripture for this group, my view of Scripture is high enough to make me uncomfortable with that.

I prefer to think in terms of "normative" and "formative" revelation. Normative revelation is the body of doctrinal truth entrusted to the church in the NT. Formative revelation is how the Holy Spirit speaks to and works with us in our own journey toward Christlikeness and spiritual maturity. Normative revelation is what is ever binding across times and cultures, formative revelation is subjective and a description of how God works in one's finite situation. Formative revelation is something which one believer cannot hold another accountable for, because it is a matter of one's own relationship with Christ. An example of this is in John 21 when Jesus says to Peter, "If I want John to live until I return--what is that to you?"

I believe that in the book of Acts we see the church, not as pristine, but in infancy and childhood, coming to terms with doctrinal and organizational needs. The Bible does not hide from us the immaturity of the early church. The problem of the distribution of food in Acts 6 is one example of the growing pains of the early church. I happen to believe that the words of Peter in Acts 2:38 compared to Acts 11:16 reflect similar growing pains.

Formative revelation is really not content revelation but our growing understanding of the will of God for our lives. For example, say Michael Demastus or Danny Gabbard relates how they felt or sensed God's call to preach the gospel. The way God did that in their lives, or mine, would differ from person to person.

Normative revelation is content oriented. "You shall worship no other gods before me" is an example of normative revelation, as would be the command "You shall not commit adultery." Normative revelation is absolute truth which is binding upon all persons in all times and places. Normative revelation reveals what is normative--what behavior is the will of God for all humans.

If I may say so, I believe the differences on the topic of baptism, and even pacifism, are examples of how even if we agree on the existence and necessity of absolute truth, we may not agree on what that abssolute truth is. Some things I would classify as formative whereas the RM brethren would classify them as normative. I, like you, believe in absolute truth--we disagree about what the absolute truth is.

This is where the inerrancy issue comes to play again. A mormon believes the book of mormon is without error and therefore absolute truth. Christians say no that is not true of the book of mormon but it is true of the Bible. Both the mormon and the Christian believe in absolute truth, but they differ in terms of the content. Now, I would suggest that both are, philosophically speaking, basing their claim on a priori concepts. If one asked why the Bible is inerrant and the book of mormon is not, most of you would say that the Bible is Divinely Revealed. But the mormon makes the same claim for his book. Intellectually, if someone asks, "Why should I believe your claim that God inspired your book but not the book of Mormon?"--how would you answer that question?

Now, I am not defending Mormonism, for the record--I denounce it as the work of Satan. But believing in the concept of absolute truth and having a common view of what that absolute truth is are two different things.

Likewise, Acts 2:38 is part of sacred writ. But I believe, in honesty and sincerity, that it is a formative statement and not necessarily a normative one. I have articulated why I believe that, so I will not digress here...but I think the normative/formative concepts correctly identify the crux of the differences between us.

This plays out in one more area. My grandparents are godly Church of Christ folks. They have always characterized their church as being the same in faith and practice as the church in the book of Acts. "We do things as closely as possible to the New Testament Church" they have said. But I have noticed, there are no prophetic utterances nor signs and wonders, which abound in the NT church. I am not arguing for prophetic utterances nor signs and wonders, but I am saying that their characterization of the CofC is not quite right, or these things would be present. To those who say that those things are no longer needed because we now have the completed revelation of God in the canon of Scripture--I respond that this indicates that you do not believe that "the apostles doctrine" is a static body...there is development and room even in the early church for a growing understanding. much is made of Mark 16:16, but no one mentions the next two verses:

(Mark 16:17-18 NIV) And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; {18} they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

This is because you place verse 16 in the normative category and 17- 18 in the formative category. OK, fine, but if I put verse 16 in the formative category along with verses 17-18, on biblical grounds, what charges can you bring against me for doing so?

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Yes!

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

If one asked why the Bible is inerrant and the book of mormon is not, most of you would say that the Bible is Divinely Revealed. But the mormon makes the same claim for his book. Intellectually, if someone asks, "Why should I believe your claim that God inspired your book but not the book of Mormon?"--how would you answer that question?

That would be easy, and it wouldn't come down to just "because I feel it is so" or "because the Bible says so" or some sort of insipid nonsense like that. I would point out that the Bible has abundant manuscript evidence; the Book of Mormon has none. The text of the Bible has been shown to be 99.9% certain, the same today as it was when Jesus walked the earth, that there are only about 50 areas of real dispute among scholars and not one of those areas affects any Christian doctrine; whereas the Book of Mormon has been changed in over 4000 places, many of the changes having been doctrinal. I would point out that the Bible depicts real people in a real place with an abundance (an overabundance!) of archaeological evidence to support it; the Book of Mormon has no evidence whatsoever, not even so much as a coin, and the Indians are mongoloid, not semitic. I would point out the numerous places where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, where it plaigarizes from the King James, its numerous logical errors and absurdities. It doesn't take a whole lot to show the Bible to be the Word of God and the Book of Mormon to be the work of man, without having to resort to the lame "because thats what I believe".

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

John

On purely philosphical grounds, while you give good evidence, it is just that--evidence. Apart from faith the evidence settles nothing. That is the point I was trying to make.

I agree with what you said, but in terms of epistemology more is needed than this...

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

John

Let me add, I think you have successfully debunked the book of Mormon, but I am not sure on purely epistemological grounds y ou h ave successfully vindicated Scripture. That takes faith...it cannot be done purely a priori.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Scott

I really enjoyed your article at www.cccflorida.org/BHS.htm

Quite insightful and something which I think has implications even for Quakers. It'll preach! (In areas such as spiriptual arrogance.)

Maybe we are stumbling over prepositions here "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", "Baptism by the Holy Spirit", "Baptism in the Holy Spirit", "Baptism with the Holy Spirit". Are these completely different or just nuances? I have never thought about that very carefully.

For the record, I do not mean the tongues thing when I talk about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Maybe you knew that, I am not sure.) I take the view that Acts 2 represents a phenomenon of people HEARING the gospel in their own language as much as anything being spoken. Definitely actual langauges are in view. At any rate, I am not into the "prayer language" type of thing.

For me, baptism is what incorporates us in Christ's body. (1 Cor 12:13) I think on this you would agree. The difference is whether that REQUIRES immersion in water. I honestly do not see that as being the way you brethren do.

At any rate, I enjoyed the article. And I thought I would make sure people knew I did not mean what the Pentecostals mean by the baptism of ths Spirit.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Brother White:

Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that you understood me when I pointed out to you that Luke, whom you agreed was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the book of Acts, said that Peter, “spake as the spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). And that this would mean that the Holy Spirit was actually the one, on the day of Pentecost giving utterance to the words of Peter when he said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38) and unless the Holy Spirit changed his mind by Acts 11, which there is not the slightest indication that the did, then those words are just as true now as they were then. For they came not from Peter but through Peter “as the spirit gave him utterance” (Acts 2:4). Please return to that post and respond to the arguments that I made, if you have the time. For you seemed to have just overlook it and bush it aside as if it had not been written. I do not mean to say that you were being disrespectful, deliberately evasive or anything like that but only that you did not give attention to what we considered to be significant argument that we made. And I have been under the assumption that when you and I discuss things that we will not ignore one another’s arguments, even if we do not consider them particularly significant.

I believe that you would agree with me that I generally make a great deal of effort to not leave any argument made by those who disagree with me untouched so long as I have the time to respond. I even respond to many things that I consider “ridiculous” and I do not ignore them because someone believes that those arguments that I consider “ridiculous” are significant.

You have said:

“Brother Lee I just thought more on the thing of having acess to the power of the Holy Spirit.”

I believe that your phrase “access to the power of Holy Spirit” is somewhat misleading though I am fully convinced that you do not intend by it to misguide anyone. It is understandable for those of us living in the twenty- first Century. Who have never seen with our eyes the “power of the Holy Spirit” that was “demonstrated” often in the days when the apostles were living (1 Cor. 2:4) to think of this matter as a mere “access to power”. Rather than God’s actual use of his power which always accompanied his revelations in order to confirm to all mankind that He was speaking His word through his chosen representatives.

There is a vast difference between our using the power of the Holy Spirit at will as one who has “access to electricity” turns the lights on and off at his home by the discretion of his own will. (Which incidentally cannot be done even though there are those who believe that it can). It is the difference between God exercising His power at the discretion of His own will through men whom he had chosen by His divine “access” to them and nen using the power of God according to their own will through “access” to His power.

The work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was a part of the determinate counsel of God’s own will which he determined by his own sovereignty over his own plan or scheme of redemption. And that work was the subject of prophecy and the fulfillment of it. It was not “temporary” but completed or finished. Just as the Crucifixion of Christ was according to the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) and it was not “temporary” but rather accomplished. When we speak of things as being “accomplished” we do not mean by that that they were “temporary” now do we. In other words, when I plan my week and complete my plan for that week I do not mean by such that my plans were "temporary” because they were no longer followed by virtue of the fact that they had accomplished their purpose. And for that reason I am convinced, for example, that the “signs that would follow them that believe” in Mark 16:17-20 has accomplished their stated purpose of “confirming the word with signs following”. And that the words of Christ concerning the appropriate response to the Gospel found in Mark 16:16) continue. For as long as the gospel continues to be preached men will continue to need to respond to it as Christ commanded them to. Thus they must still “believe and be baptized” as he commanded for their salvation. But the signs have accomplished their purpose of confirming for all time that the gospel is a divine revelation from God and thus they do not continue to do that which they have already completed or accomplished.

And such was the case with the work of the Holy Spirit as much as with the crucifixion of Christ. When he was crucified he said, “it is finished”. He completed or accomplished the purpose for which he came to this earth, which was to die for our sins. Now because that act was completed or “finished” and it accomplished it’s purpose because it is not being repeated today does not mean that his dying was a “temporary measure” and so it is with the work of the Holy Spirit. Joel prophesied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the destruction of Jerusalem. And what we find beginning in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost is the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28 and the work of the Holy Spirit as prophesied by him. And between the day of Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem the Holy Spirit was working to accomplish the task of “revealing” the word of God and “confirming” for all time that those words were indeed a revelation from God. And the Hebrew writer says that such was exactly what was accomplished (Heb. 2:3,4). And that task was completed and the prophecy was fulfilled so that Jude could rightly say that we should contend earnestly for the faith “ONCE DELIVERED” to the saints. It is not now being delivered for it is a task that was not temporary but accomplished and because it was accomplished perfectly it need not be repeated. And those seeking for the Holy Spirit to continue today to do what he has already perfectly accomplished in the revealing and confirming of the word of God may as well be expecting Christ to continue to repeat his earthly ministry. And to, every three years, be crucified in Jerusalem for our sins. Now, both Christ and the Holy Spirit influence and guide us through the exact same word and instruction that the Holy Spirit gave the apostles in the first century just as Christ saves us today by the same crucifixion that took place 2000 years ago. Thus no one ever had “access to the power of the Holy Spirit” in the sense in which I understand the meaning of that phrase. But rather the Holy Spirit had access to faithful and obedient men who were chosen by Christ to receive the inspired revelation of God’s word. And through whom he would exercise his power to demonstrate or confirm that those words were in fact an actual revelation from God and not the mere imaginations of men. But I do think that I understand how you meant your phrase “access to the power of the Holy Spirit” by which it seems that you mean only that men were in direct communication with the Spirit of God. And were given powers to prove that God was working with them. But it does hinder, so it seems to me, the clarity of our discussion of these matters. For as I have described many today treat the matter as if they have control and can by their faith make, or in some way entice the Holy Spirit to “give them access to His Power” much as Simon who sought to “buy the gift of God with money”. He also sought this power as if it was a matter of paying for the “access to it” much like my business customers pay me for access to AT&T lines and facilities. And that it was a power that they were to control and possess as their own property or right of passage. I am not convinced that you meant this in this way but only do not want to allow any misunderstanding of this important point.

Then you seek to make a “useful distinction” as follows:

“Let me make what I believe is a useful distinction. Most Quakers believe in "continuing revelation." I do not like this term because it creates false connotations that place our subjective experiences on par with the Scriptures--and even though I do not have a "high" enough view of Scripture for this group, my view of Scripture is high enough to make me uncomfortable with that.”

I agree with you that most Quakers believe in “continuing revelation” and that is one area wherein I do not agree with them in the least and neither does the word of God. I am also pleased to note that, while you do not have the high view of scripture that we hold, you at least have a higher view of scripture than those who “place their subjective experiences on a par with the scriptures” and for that I am truly glad. And I hope by our discussions, if we can keep them on a high level and maintain a high view of them that we might be able to convince you to hold the scriptures in a “higher view” that you hold them at present. It is at least my hope that we can work toward this end inasmuch as it seems that you have no deliberate intention to persuade us to LOWER our “view of scripture” as you describe it.

Then you state your distinction as follows:

“I prefer to think in terms of "normative" and "formative" revelation.”

Now, I do not read of any such thing in the scriptures as “normative and formative revelation”. And I know that you did not say that I could find such terminology there. But I must say that I am pleased that you have chosen to define what you mean by those terms for they are not really familiar to students of the word of God. For they are not found there nor does it seem that the concepts that you seem to be describing by them are found there either.

But you define your two terms as follows:

“ Normative revelation is the body of doctrinal truth entrusted to the church in the NT.”

Now if you do not mind I would like to ask you to expand and specify if you would your use of the terms “formative revelation”. And do be more specific as to what is and is not the “body of doctrinal truth” that you are talking about so that we can more accurately understand you.

Then you define the other term as follows:

“ Formative revelation is how the Holy Spirit speaks to and works with us in our own journey toward "Christlikeness and spiritual maturity.”

Now it seems to me that just here you are speaking of something that is subjective in reference to us that we do not find promised to us in the New Testament. Could you please specify from the scriptures whether the Holy Spirit “speaks to and works with us in our journey toward Christlikeness” and describe just how this is done? For you see it is very possible that the Holy Spirit in the process of revealing the word of God intended by that same word to guide us to “christlikeness and maturity”. And that he had no intentions of “speaking to and working directly with us in what you call “our Journey”. It may be, and I believe that we can demonstrate, that he HAS SPOKEN TO US through His word and that he is guiding us through those words rather than speaking to us and working directly with us. It is like the Hebrew writer said, “God who at sundry times and in divers ways spake unto the fathers by the prophets hath in these last days SPOKEN to us through His son.” (Heb. 1:1). The idea being that God has spoken he is not now speaking except through the record of the words that he has spoken. Anyway, I tell you this so that you can clarify just HOW you mean that God is providing this “formative revelation” so that I do not misunderstand you in our discussion of this matter.

So if you do not mind, I will wait for your further clarification of just what you mean by these two terms before proceeding to answer the rest of your post. I have much that I would like to say but I do not want to misrepresent what you are saying and therefore I ask for you to clarify in more detail what you mean by these to terms “Normative” and “formative”. I suspect that I understand exactly what you mean but I would rather be sure so that I do not misunderstand or in any way misrepresent your meaning. I hope that you will not mind clarifying the matter further to assist us in not misunderstanding or in any way misrepresenting you in our response. I would sincerely appreciate your making one more effort to be a little bit more detailed concerning these two concepts. Now, I do not mean to imply that your words were unclear but only that they do not provide me with sufficient information to draw a certain conclusion concerning exactly what you mean.

If you will please clarify just a bit further I would appreciate it and will then complete my response to your post. If you feel that you have been sufficiently clear and that you do not wish to offer any further clarification just tell me and I will proceed to finish my response to your post with the information that you have taken the time out of your day to provide. And you can correct me if I misrepresent you. I only want to prevent us from misunderstanding what you have said.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Lee

Thanks for another thoughtful post.

I will say to begin with that I do believe I understood you with regard to Peter's words in Acts 2:38. I simply do not totally agree.

Regarding the clarity of my thoughts, I am sorry I did not succeed in making myself clear. I will try to clarify.

Normative revelation is what sets the norms for Christian faith. We may not agree concerning what those norms entail, as you would include water baptism and I would not, for example, but as a category I mean by normative revelation the doctrinal content which is essential to true Christian faith. As I said, we do not agree on what that category entails, but I believe we agree that such a category exists.

By formative revelation I mean how God leads us and works in our lives in ways which are not standard for all believers in all times and places. Missionaries are called by God to specific fields of labor. God at times prompts us to pray for specific persons and needs. These are means of God speaking to us, but not in terms of doctrinal content, rather in terms of ordering our personal lives in line with Scripture. I consider formative revelation NEVER to be contradictory to the Scripture properly interpreted. Rather, formative revelation is how the Holy Spirit works through us in concrete ways with scriptural principles which are more abstract.

Example: The Bible enjoins us to pray for one another in numerous places, but that does not mean we can pray for every brother or sister in the earth. So the Lord brings people to mind for us to intercede for them. That is a personal and specific application of the general principle of praying for one another.

Another thing I would say about formative revelation is that it occurs within the pages of Scripture, and it represents things that sometimes are left behind as we move on to maturity. Now you would not choose my terminology here and that is OK. But you believe something similar, as indicated by the fact that you do not place the same emphasis on Mark 16:17-18 as you do Mark 16:16, even though the antecedent of "those who believe" in 17-18 is "he that believeth" in verse 16. If these are the "ipsissima verba" of Jesus, as you hold, then divine healing and speaking in tongues and snake handling are in order in the churches of Christ. Now I know you do not believe that (I do not either) but this simply proves that--whether you like my terms normative and formative or not--you understand that not all Scripture carries equal weight. Implicit in this is that even in the NT there is room for growth and development. If Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is formative rather than normative, then even though it is of God, that does not mean he spoke without error. He spoke truth, but that truth is embedded in human words rather than overriding them. Thus, even though God was speaking through Peter, Peter's limitations and fallacies were not overrideen, and thus the message is not totally pure. In this he does not differ from us when we preach. Woe to us if we get into the pulpit and the Holy Spirit is not giving us utterance!! I fear that it is such thinking that leaves us only with a human word and no word of God at all. Evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch has pointed out that the type ofliteral inerrantism which many holds takes Scripture off the plane of revelation and sets it on the plane of reason, and does so in a way which makes it something which we master rather than something we sit under. Bloesch is the one who articulated the view of inerrancy I have embraced.

One thing I perceive in this forum, and correct me if I am wrong, is that all preaching requires is good exegesis. I am all for good exegesis. But we need more or the sermon becomes an intellectual exercise only. "The Letter kills but the Spirit gives life."

This is why neo-orthodoxy is so valuable. I believe there would be no conservative Christianity left if it were not for neo-orthodoxy. 19th century liberalism pretty much disarmed a fundamentalist view of Scripture...total literalism is not possible. Neo-orthodoxy salvaged the gospel even while making use of the important gains the liberal scholars made in textual matters, etc.

When you write:

I hope by our discussions, if we can keep them on a high level and maintain a high view of them that we might be able to convince you to hold the scriptures in a “higher view” that you hold them at present. It is at least my hope that we can work toward this end inasmuch as it seems that you have no deliberate intention to persuade us to LOWER our “view of scripture” as you describe it.

You are correct that it is not my intent to have anyone LOWER THEIR VIEW. I am trying to ELEVATE the views to a place worthy of Sacred writ, a view which sees truth for what it is and subjectivity for what it is, even though the two are often intertwined. For the reasons I stated above, I believe the neo-orthodox view to be a HIGHER view than the lietral inerrantist view. As I have said before, inerrancy in theological matters I can affirm, but not historical or scientific. I have studied this issue for over 20 years and abandoned the view most on this forum hold as intellectually unviable and therefore unworthy to be held. Thus when you say you hope I will come to a higher view I respond that I cannot for I hold what I believe to be the highest possible view of Scripture without committing intellectual suicide.

I hope this helps. I mean no offense, but I must be honest. I will be starting another thread, for I have been looking at what Thayer says about the article "de". I find there support for my view of baptism. I hope in the next couple of days to get that written and trust you will take a look.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Scott You write:

Did you notice that last quote? They had received the Gift of the Holy Spirit as the Apostles had (11:15 informs us that this was not a common occurance for it had not happened since "in the beginning"). Why, if this is what brought about their salvation (Spirit baptism), would Peter want to baptize them in water? As an outward witness? Get real! They were speaking in tongues. That was a pretty strong outward witness, stronger than getting wet. Yet Peter asks, Who can deny them?

I respond:

Then explain the contradiction to me: In Acts 2:38 we are told that water baptism PRECEDES the gift of the Holy Spirit being received, but in Acts 10 Peter says: "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

They had received the Holy Spirit. God reversed the order and this is what made Peter re-think. In Acts 11:16 he recalls the words of the Lord, (Acts 11:16 NIV) Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

The word "But" here is the article "de" about which I have been reading Thayer and want to write more. For now I will say that "de" carries almost always connotations of what follows it replacing what precedes it. Peter uses that word here. The light bulb comes on. The reason they received the Holy Spirit first is because it is not contingent on immersion. God proved that to him. Peter had the order wrong. I challenge anyone to demonstrate to me from Acts 11 onward where Peter insisted on water baptism.

Lee you write:

And the Hebrew writer says that such was exactly what was accomplished (Heb. 2:3,4). And that task was completed and the prophecy was fulfilled so that Jude could rightly say that we should contend earnestly for the faith “ONCE DELIVERED” to the saints. It is not now being delivered for it is a task that was not temporary but accomplished and because it was accomplished perfectly it need not be repeated. And those seeking for the Holy Spirit to continue today to do what he has already perfectly accomplished in the revealing and confirming of the word of God may as well be expecting Christ to continue to repeat his earthly ministry. And to, every three years, be crucified in Jerusalem for our sins. Now, both Christ and the Holy Spirit influence and guide us through the exact same word and instruction that the Holy Spirit gave the apostles in the first century just as Christ saves us today by the same crucifixion that took place 2000 years ago. Thus no one ever had “access to the power of the Holy Spirit” in the sense in which I understand the meaning of that phrase. But rather the Holy Spirit had access to faithful and obedient men who were chosen by Christ to receive the inspired revelation of God’s word. And through whom he would exercise his power to demonstrate or confirm that those words were in fact an actual revelation from God and not the mere imaginations of men. But I do think that I understand how you meant your phrase “access to the power of the Holy Spirit” by which it seems that you mean only that men were in direct communication with the Spirit of God. And were given powers to prove that God was working with them. But it does hinder, so it seems to me, the clarity of our discussion of these matters.

I respond:

Yes, it is a faith ONCE DELIVERED. They received it and passed it on to us and we posess it. And the Holy Spirit still speaks. It is not as if God just "shut up" after the 1st century. He still illumines his truth to us. The Reformers used to say in the 1500's, "God hath yet more light to break forth from his Holy word." Now call that revelation or illumination or whatever, the Holy Spirit is still as active in the body of Christ as ever. Else the body could not "BREATHE" so to speak. It would be dead.

You state:

But rather the Holy Spirit had access to faithful and obedient men who were chosen by Christ to receive the inspired revelation of God’s word.

And I agree, but he wants to have the same access to us now and our theologies often will not allow Him to.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Friends, Brethren, Sisters, please read...

(I wanted to say "Friends, Romans, Countrymen lend me your ear, but it just did not work...)

Brother Saffold and others have used the Lexicon of Thayer in regard to the preposition "eis" in Acts 2:38.

I got to thinking about the article "de" (English: "but"--Strongs number 1161) It appears in the following verses:

(Mat 3:11 NIV) "I baptize you with water for repentance. BUT after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

(Mark 1:8 NIV) I baptize you with water, BUT he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

(Luke 3:16 NIV) John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

(Acts 11:16 NIV) Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, BUT you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Thayer gives the following definitions for "de."

--Univ. by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opp. to a preceing statement.

--after negative statements, "but", "but rather".

--it is joined with terms which are repeated with a certain emphasis, and with such as tend to explain and establish them more exactly; in this use of the article we may supply a suppressed negative clause [and give its force in English by inserting 'I say, and that, so then, etc.'

--it serves to mark a transition to something new; by this use of the particle, the new addition is distinguished from and, as it were, opposed to what goes before.

--introduces explainations and separates them from the things to be explained.

--after a parenthesis or explaination which had led away from the subject under discussion, it serves to take up the discourse again.

--it introduces the apodosis and, as it were, opposes it to the protasis.

Now Friends, one of the terms Scott Sheridan asked me about was "normal usage." With all due respect, the normal usage of "de" would lead one to see the contrast of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with water baptism by immersion. Given the fact that the normal use of "baptizo" is to immerse, the ""de" means two things:

(1) Baptism with the Holy Spirit is placed in opposition to water baptism. That is the only way normal usage would permit the passages which mention water baptism and Spirit baptism to be contstrued,

(2) Spirit baptism is a metaphorical use of the term, in contrast to the normal usage of "baptizo". This is a case where the normal usage of "de" requires that phrases such as "autos de baptisei umas en pneumati hagio" (Mark 1:8) carry the import of contrasting the metaphor against the mornal usage itself.

Now, this being so, it is at least a reasonable plausibility that my position on baptism is correct.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Very good, CG. I couldn't agree more.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Shall I conclude, from the lack of response to my post about the article "de", that what I have to say is persuasive to this audience?

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Brother White:

You have said:

“Shall I conclude, from the lack of response to my post about the article "de", that what I have to say is persuasive to this audience?”

Such a conclusion would indeed be an extremely faulty one, my good friend, at least as far as my part is concerned. As you can see from my several posts from the last week in other threads I have been quite busy. But I do want to respond when I have some time to do so because your argument from the Greek particle “de” is not very convincing at all. Neither is it a new argument. It is based upon a failure to comprehend all of the varied and numerous uses of this particle and the facts related to the baptism of John, and baptism in the name of Christ and the actual “baptism of the Holy Spirit”. That is the purposes and functions of each.

Because this would be a detailed discussion of the etymology of the particle “de” and the detailed discussion of the three baptisms, which I have mentioned above my response, will require some concentrated effort and thus some time. I hope that you can understand that such is the reason, at least on my part, that I have not yet responded. For I have been involved in answering several people who have insisted that I do so and since I work all week I must take them one by one until I finish.

So, if you wish to conclude that your argument is “persuasive” without any more evidence than the silence of those who for whatever reason have not responded to your post we would not rob you of that right. But after you have drawn that conclusion do not be surprised when you receive a response that gives you some good reasons why your argument from “de” is not really very convincing at all.

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Friend Lee,

Thanks for the note. I know my arguments were not "persuasive", so I meant that tongue-in-cheek. I also know my theology, based on clear NT teachings, is the correct one.

But I enjoy the dialogue and look forward to hearing from you.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001