We've all memorized the verse about faith being the evidence of things unseen, but I've been thinking for awhile about the ways people define and use 'faith'. Some examples;

In defense of doctrines that are difficult to prove from the scriptures, some will respond, 'I just have to have faith.' This really bothers me. I have never seen anywhere in the scriptures where we are required to be blindly obedient to a doctrine if we don't know it's the truth.

Or, for another example, somebody has livestock that come from a herd which turned out to have a contagious, incurable disease. This person will not test her herd to see if her animals have the disease. 'God knows that we need these animals and I just have to have faith that He'll take care of them'. It sounded like denial to me.

Or a woman has a drunken, abusive husband who repeatedly puts her in the hospital, or molests her children. Why doesn't she leave him? 'I have to have faith that things are going to get better and that God will change him.' That sounds like a cop-out to me, an excuse for not taking action in leaving the situation.

I hear faith misused in these and many other ways, almost every day. I even get tired of hearing about faith, although it's such an important conerstone of our salvation. I have never seen any examples in the scripture where faith was represented in this way. How have we come to believe that denial, martyrdom, or just plain stupidity are synonymous with faith? Is it just me?

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Answers

i recommend ExploreFaith.org ( i had a lot of my questions answered here. i just found this site, its pretty cool. ) i dont agree with the abuse that woman go thru. i dont believe that Jesus wants us to stay in a situation (marriage) were its very dangerous.. he desires that we live in peace. Belief is pretty much what we base our faith in. but i think that Hope is pretty much what we go by, God has given us common sense. if your animal is sick, you take it to the vet. everyone has their own level of faith. but not everyone is given the same brain. we are each given a measure of faith and i have faith, i have hope, and i have love. what i do with these are actions that are based on my faith. faith without works is dead. teri

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Faith WITHOUT conscience, such as allowing sin to continue against a child, is a terrible mis-use of faith. Real faith is far from a cop-out but an actual taking God at his word: it is faith with a conscience. Here's an article I wrote awhile ago that I hope is relevant to your question:

I've been noticing there is a teaching in the Holy Bible about holding faith with a pure conscience. What's a good, pure conscience have to do with saving faith? Doesn't faith have to be "alone" to be saving? Doesn't adding a "good conscience" to faith turn faith into a work? Perhaps so according to modern false teaching, but not so according to the Holy Scriptures.

Let's look at what the Bible says about faith and conscience:

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

Hbr 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Before we look at the verses, let's see how Webster's 1828 Unabridged Dictionary defines conscience:

CONSCIENCE, n. [L., to know, to be privy to.]

1. Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. Conscience is called by some writers the moral sense, and considered as an original faculty of our nature. Others question the propriety of considering conscience as a distinct faculty or principle. The consider it rather as the general principle of moral approbation or disapprobation, applied to ones own conduct and affections; alledging that our notions of right and wrong are not to be deduced from a single principle or faculty, but from various powers of the understanding and will.

Being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one. John 8.

The conscience manifests itself in the feeling of obligation we experience, which precedes, attends and follows our actions.

Wow! When I read the definition of conscience, I knew why Paul spent so much time writing exhortations, instructions, admonitions, and commands to the churches. Believers needed to have their consciences trained to discern right from wrong in the Christian life. They were learning their duty as believers from Paul's writings and then proceeded to action based upon what they were taught was right to do. Whether or not their actions were in accordance with his teachings was the way the believers held their faith in a good, pure conscience or whether their faith was held in an evil conscience, and was finally shipwrecked. Because they had a standard to go by to udge themselves, they were able to hold the faith in a good conscience, because they knew what a good conscience WAS by Paul's writings.

No wonder Paul told the believers to: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves."-2 Corinthians 13:5 This examining and proving of themselves to see whether they were in the faith was really a checking to see if they held the "mystery of the faith in a good conscience"(1 Tim. 3:9), and "holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: (1 Tim. 1:9). Paul warned the believers to EXAMINE and PROVE themselves to see whether they be in the faith because he did not want their faith to become SHIPWRECKED!

I used to wonder about the "examine yourselves" verse. I used to wonder why believers would have to do this. Either you believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for your soul's salvation or not, I reasoned. What is this "examine yourselves" teaching all about. But once I could see that "believing" or having faith MUST be present with a good conscience, it all tied together and made sense.

I used to wonder why Paul wrote so many, many commands and teachings for believers to follow. Since faith, NOT works is the way we are justifed, then what's the reason for all these commands? Aren't they rather superfluous? NO! Every word of God is pure and is there for a reason: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."-2 Tim. 3:16

This verse was written to Timothy but is not just for men of God: pastors. It is for us all. Why do we need to be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" if we are saved by faith and NOT works of righteousness? Because believers' hearts have been "sprinkled from an evil conscience" and they must hold the "mystery of the faith in a pure conscience" which can only be done by knowing and obeying the scriptures that are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

What does a "pure conscience" concerning faith consist of? It consists of judging as right or wrong the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections according to the Holy Scriptures and instantly approving or condemning them. It is by the Scriptures that we hold the faith in a good conscience or a bad conscience.

It matters GREATLY whether we hold the most holy faith in a GOOD conscience (obeying the doctrines, reproofs, corrections, and instructions in righteousness in the Holy Scriptures) or in a BAD conscience (disobeying the doctrines, reproofs, corrections, and instructions in righteousness) which leads to our faith being shipwrecked. Sadly, many hold the faith in a bad conscience and commit adultery, fornication, are covetous, fierce, traitors, heady, highminded, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.

Tragically, many believers have a form of godliness but deny the POWER thereof. What power are they denying? The power to live godly in Christ Jesus. This power is being denied in their lives because they are under censored teaching that leaves out this truth. Thank the dear Lord God this truth has not been censored from the Holy Scriptures, the King James Bible, and we can know EVERYTHING God says about salvation in His Holy Word.

Sincerely,

Lisa

True Gospel Vs. False Gospel

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

As an aside ---

We do hear people everyday share how "one only has to have faith" ... "it is faith alone that sves us" ... etc., etc.

It is interesting that the only time we see the words "faith" and "alone," that is, the phrase 'faith alone" or "faith only" (depending on your translation) is in James 2:24; "So you see, we are made right with God by what we do, not by faith alone." (NLT)

Just a thought!

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Darrell,

I am hoping to carry on a Christian conversation with you without encountering personal attacks. I do not think we are going to agree on this subject, but hopefully we can remain respectful in our disagreement.

"Faith," (pistis) is translated "belief" in Rom. 10:17; 2 Thess. 2:13. Its chief significance is a conviction respecting God and His Word and the believer's relationship to Him. The terms faith and believe are in places interchangeable. The definitions of faith and believe in the Greek carry the same meaning, to be persuaded, firm persuasion, to persuade.

Faith

4102,pistis> Primarily, "firm persuasion," a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, "to persuade"), is used in the NT always of "faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual."

Believe

pisteuo> "To believe," also "to be persuaded of," and hence, "to place confidence in, to trust," signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.

pistos> In the Active sense means "believing, trusting;" (b) in the Passive sense, "trusty, faithful, trustworthy."

As we can clearly see from the Greek the words faith and believe have the same root.

You have suggested, and you are not alone in this forum, that the only place faith is mentioned along side the word "only" or "alone" is in James.

With my research above I would like you to comment on the following reference. If you wouldn't mind, could we keep it simple?

Mark 5:36

"As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe."

Jesus instructs the ruler to only have faith, He states, "only believe".

In Christ's Love

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Darrell,

I apologize, after rereading my message, realized that Romans 10:17 does not say "believe" but rather "faith". Therefore I am supplying other instances where "pistis" (faith) is translated as "believe".

Ro 3:26

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believe in Jesus."

Heb 10:39

"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Not much time, but a short answer --

Both passage in Romans were written to Christians -- those who had already "joined the gang" so to speak.

I had a friend who was quick to use "The Roman Road to Salvation" when sharing about Christ to unbelievers. The problem is, as I said before, Romans was written to believers, not to unbelievers.

While the passages in Romans are certainly true, we must use other passages in sharing our faith and what the Bible says about joining with Christ. The best book for that (imho) is Acts, the history book of the church, where we find a number of conversion accounts. Then we add passages in other books.

I have brought up this point before (Romans and other letters that were written to Christians being used in conversion discussions). Some disagree with me -- that's cool. I just choose to use the examples we find in the Bible (Acts) in order to show how things were done in the early church ... and how we should be doing it today.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Darrell,

I am not sure who you are responding too?

You asked for a verse that mentions the word fatih and only together in a verse....I supplied one and am still awaiting your response.

Thank you,

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

Barry -- the point is -- those verses you mentioned are from letters written to Christians. In this era of "faith alone" or "faith only" salvation appeals, I believe it is important to ensure we follow the entire NT when discussing how a person comes to Christ. That is the point. I was originally responding to the concept some people (mistakingly) have that it is by "faith only" or "faith alone" that we are saved. That is all.

It is an old point, discussed on many other threads, and again, one I don't want to drag out.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

Darrell,

Here is what you said about there only being one verse in the Scriptures that mentions faith only or only faith…

"We do hear people everyday share how "one only has to have faith" ... "it is faith alone that sves us" ... etc., etc. It is interesting that THE ONLY TIME we see the words "faith" and "alone," that is, the phrase 'faith alone" or "faith only" (depending on your translation) is in James 2:24; "So you see, we are made right with God by what we do, not by faith alone." (NLT) Just a thought!" (emphasis mine).

Now you counter my response with this statement….

"Barry -- the point is -- those verses you mentioned are from letters written to Christians."

Actually Darrell that is not the point.

You said, "It is interesting that the only time we see the words "faith" and "alone," that is, the phrase 'faith alone" or "faith only" (depending on your translation) is in James 2:24" and I provided a verse that contradicts what you claim.

James 2:24 is not the only time we see the words faith alone or faith only, how about Mark 5:36 ?

"As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe."

I also provided evidence that pistis (faith) and pisteuo (believe) are interchangeable and that Jesus is telling this ruler to only have faith or as you have mentioned faith only. This is clearly showing that your initial statement as false.

In the original message to start this thread Chamoisee stated…

"I hear faith misused in these and many other ways, almost every day. I even get tired of hearing about faith, although it's such an important cornerstone of our salvation. I have never seen any examples in the scripture where faith was represented in this way."

Even though I agree somewhat with her concerning the abuses of faith, she stated she could not find an example in Scripture that faith was presented in a way that a person should "only believe".

I have provided her as well as yourself an example.

It is interesting to note, if one were to look back over all of my posts I have always stated that redemption is by Grace through faith. This is a far cry from faith only as I have never stated so, I have always maintained….Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works. Notice the "formula" does not say Faith = Redemption + Good Works as you and others continually imply.

Also of interest, even though I have never claimed what those on this forum state as "faith only", I have pointed out on occasion that Jesus is the one who mentions faith independent of any works for everlasting life.

John 6:47

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has said:

"Also of interest, even though I have never claimed what those on this forum state as "faith only", I have pointed out on occasion that Jesus is the one who mentions faith independent of any works for everlasting life."

This is not the first time that Mr. Hanson has deliberately lied about having stated that we are saved by "faith only". He said this before and we responded but he has yet to answer us. Therefore we will now post his exact words wherein he did state what he claims that he never stated as follows:

Now Mr. Hanson, in another quote from him in another thread says the same thing as follows:

“(Notice that I have never said “faith alone” as it has been falsely stated)”. Well brethren, if you will simply go to the thread entitled “Revival of an Old Discussion on Baptism” you will find the following remarks by Mr. Hanson, while discussing the exact same passage which he is now discussing. And therein you will find him clearly, emphatically and definitely saying what he NOW CLAIMS that he NEVER said as follows:

“Moving on…you state… "The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he?" Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28. -- Barry R. Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), May 10, 2001.”

Now you can go to that thread and read it, friends. Mr., Hanson did definitely say in response to my question “the Lord did not say that one is saved by faith only, now did he?” and he said in his response, “Well, yes. Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on several occasions that one is saved by faith alone”. And he gave the references that he falsely claimed represented Jesus as saying that which Jesus never said. All one need to do is read them and you will not find that Christ ever said in any of them that we are saved by “faith alone”, as Mr. Hanson falsely claimed. But now he wants you to believe that he has been “falsely” charged with saying “faith alone” but as you can see he is not telling the truth, now is he? Now we having provided irrefutable evidence here, Friends and Brethren, that Mr. Hanson is denying that he ever said “faith alone” and we have given you the exact thread with the exact date and place where he did in fact say “believing alone”. Now Mr. Hanson needs to come back in here and admit that he said those words and repent for having lied to us in claiming that he “never” said them, now doesn’t he?

John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

We have responded to this verse now several times now in other threads and Mr. Hanson has had nothing to say to our response. But since he has ignored it we will repeat our response in this thread for the benefit of those who are interseted in the truth and do not appreciate anyone who deliberately lies to them.

Indeed it is true that “hath” is present tense.

But read just seven verses up from this one in your Bibles and you will find.

John 6:40

“For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

“Should have” is future tense. Now how can one explain just how it is that the Lord said that those who believe on him “should have” (future tense) in John 6:40 and then seven verses later say he that believeth on me “hath” (present tense) everlasting life? Which one is it? It cannot be both, now can it? But the truth is that those who believe on Christ do, in the present tense have eternal life in prospect. In other words what they have is the “power to become sons of God the end result of which is eternal life. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:” (John 1:12). The moment that one believes he has the “power to become” but he is not at that moment a “son of God”. But having the right or power to become sons of God is certainly the right to everlasting life, now isn’t it.

But as we have shown before there were many who believed on Christ who did not exersize that right by allowing their faith to lead them into submitting to his lordship and obeying him. For this reason we are told that christ is the “author of eternal life to all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:8,9). We are told that the “devils believe and tremble” (James 2:16-18) and they even believed on Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Mark 3:11). Did they receive everlasting life the moment they believed on Christ as the Son of God? I think not! And then we have the account of the Jews that believed on Jesus but would not confess him because they “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue:” (John 12:42). Now these men “believed on Jesus” but they would not confess him! Did they receive everlasting life the moment that they believed on Jesus? Well we are told, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness but with the MOUTH CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION” (Romans 10:9,10). And Christ said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32,33). Again we have yet another case. “As he spake these words, many believed on him.” (John 8:30). Now these were believers who “believed on” Christ. Here are clearly some believers. Do they have eternal life? We will see. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; (John 8:31). Jesus then continues His address to “those Jews which believed on Him” until at the fortieth verse he says: “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.” TO these same believers he says, “Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44). Here were persons who believed on the Son of God but they sought kill him, and he tells them that they are children of the devil. Surely then he who believes on the son of God. But does not “perfect” his faith (James 2:21-22) by obedience to His will (Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8,9; James 2:21-22) cannot have eternal life, either in possession or in prospect, unless, indeed, he may be a “son of God” and a child of the devil at the same time!

So it should be obvious that none of these listed above received everlasting life “the moment they believed on Jesus”. Mr. Hanson’s false theory notwithstanding! For if they did they receive everlasting life they received it without being saved, even though Christ would deny them before the father, which is in heaven, and while they remained children of the devil intent upon killing the Son of God! Who can believe such nonsense as this, which is offered by our friend Mr. Hanson? None, who believes God’s word can accept it, now can they?

Now let us notice how the rest of the word of God abuntantly shows that we have eternal life in prospect in this life and in actuallity in the next. When do we have eteranl life, before or after we are “raised up at the last day”? Jesus said plainly, “I will raise him up at the last day. He does not “raise him up” the moment that he believes, now does he?

Nothing is more clearly taught in the scriptures that a man never has eternal life otherwise than in prospect while he dwells in the flesh. Eternalmeans without beginning or end – of endless duration. But Paul says to the Corinthians, “More over brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preaced unto you, which also ye received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are saved, IF ye keep in memeory what I preached unto you unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN?” (1 Cor. 15:1,2). How could a man ever have “believed in vain” if he were in possess of eternal life the moment that he believed? For if one has eternal life in actual possession, rather than simply in prospect, he cannot “believe in vain” . He cannot fall away and be lost for then it would not be eternal life, now would it. That it is possible for one fall away and be eternally lost can be seen from these passages of scripture.

Peter said, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:” (2 Peter 1:10). If they already possessed everlasting life then it could not ever end. And thus there would have been no need to make their “calling and election sure” for it would have already been sure the moment that they believed. But the truth is that they needed to make it sure and if they did these thing they would never fall. If they did not “do these things” they would fall or would at least be liable to fall. Thus they had eteranl life in prospect but not in actual possession as a certain never ending right.

Then Paul told the Romans, “destroy not him with thy meat for who Christ died.” Roamns 14:15) and to the corinthians he said, “and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for who Christ died.” (1 Cor. 8:11). Thus we see that it is possible for those “weak brothers” who believed on Christ to “be destroyed” or “perish” evn though they believed on Christ and He had died for them. So, if they were to have been destroyed that would have been the “end” of their “ever;asting life” if they actually possessed it. But the truth is that they had it only in prospect or as a promise that they would receive upon the condition of continued faithfulness to Christ.

Then we are told, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and BRING UPON THEMSELVES SWIFT DESTRUCTION.” (2 Peter 2:1). Now, here we have Peter speaking of alse teachers that would deny the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. How did the Lord buy them? Paul admonished the Elders at Ephesus to “feed the church of God which he purchased with is own blood”. (Acts 20:28). Then it was with the blood of Christ that these false teachers had been bought ye they would deny Him and be destroyed swiftly! Now, if they had “everlasting life the moment that they believed on Christ” in their actual possession rather than in prospect how could they have been destroyed. For such a distruction would have put an end to that which was “eternal”. Well, the truth is that they had the hope of eternal life in the life to come. But they never actually possessed it in this life. Otherwise it would have been impossible for them to have been destroyed now wouldn’t it?

But further confirmation of the fact that eternal life only in prospect. “And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” (Mark 10:29,30). Luke gives an abridgement of this promise, “Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (Luke 18:30). Here the Lord expressly tells us when his followers shall have eternal life. We shall have it IN THE WORLD TO COME. According to Mr. Hanson’s theory the disciples of the Lord could have replied to Christ: “Lord, you said that ‘he that believeth on the son of God hath everlasting life’; we believe on you, and therefore have eternal life now: why do you say that we shall have it in the world to come?”

Paul said, “Now, being made free from sin, and become servants unto God, ye have your fruit unto holiness and in the end eternal life.” Paul’s brethren at Rome were then pardoned- free from sin- servants of God- and ofcourse were believers in Jesus, yet they were to HAVE ETERNAL LIFE AT THE END.

And again Paul speaks of the righteous judgement, when God, “will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING seek for glory, and honor and immortality, and eternal life; but to them that are contentious, and do not OBEY THE TRUTH, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the gentile.” (Romans 2:6-8). Thus those who persevere in well-doing unto the end will then receive eternal life.

Paul admonished Timothy to fight the good fight of faith, that he might “lay hold on eternal life”. (1 Tim. 6:12). Surely this man of God did not have to fight to lay hold on that which he already had the moment that he believed on Christ!

And to Titus Paul said, “ being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:7). He who is justified by grace “hopes for eternal life”; yet he cannot hope for that which he already has. For we are told, “but if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it”. (Romans 3:25). But Mr. Hanson does not want to “wait for it” he insist that he already has it! So it is obvious that he does not have the “hope of eternal life” but rather he actually possess it.

So, those who had been baptised at the baptism of John had eternal life but how did they have it. They had it in prospect or by right or grant. They were heirs of eternal life but they had not yet received their inheritance. In fact, Christ had not even died for these men as yet when he spoke those words. And if they had believed on him at that very moment in response to his words they could not have been given at that very moment everlasting life for Christ had not yet been crucified! If they received eternal life at that very moment they would have been saved without the blood of Christ being shed for them. He was telling them if they believed on him they have eternal life as a right or an inheritance which they would receive after he died for them for “without the shedding of blood there is no remission”

Then here is MR. Hanson’s formula for salvation but it is not the same as Christ fromula.

Mr. Hanson’s formula is:

“Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works.”

Christ said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

Faith + Baptism = salvation

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).

Repent +Baptism = remission of sins

Romans 10:9,10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Now if a person believes in his heart and at that moment he receives everlasting life before he even opens his mouth to confess Christ, then how could he confess “unto salvation” if he had already received it the moment that he believed what he would only later confess. For one cannot confess that which he has not first concieved and believed. But be that as it may the essense of this verse would be:

Faith +confession = salvation

Taken all together from God’s word we get

Grace +faith + repentance + confession + baptism =salvation

As you can see Mr. Hanson’s formula leaves out much that God’s word puts in, now doesn’t it?

There is no way in which Mr. Hanson can find one single verse which teaches that we are “saved” or “justified” by faith ONLY. And he has now twice denied that he ever said that we are saved by “faith only” but we will one more time point to the fact that he has lied about that. Look at his words again:

““Therefore we arrive at the Bible understanding of the Good News…. (notice that I have never said "faith alone" as it has been falsely stated)”

Now Mr. Hanson, in the above quote from him says “(Notice that I have never said “faith alone” as it has been falsely stated)”. Well brethren, if you will simply go to the thread entitled “Revival of an Old Discussion on Baptism” you will find the following remarks by Mr. Hanson, while discussing the exact same passage which he is now discussing. And therein you will find him clearly, emphatically and definitely saying what he NOW CLAIMS that he NEVER said as follows: “Moving on…you state… "The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he?" Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28. -- Barry R. Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), May 10, 2001.”

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I have not responded to your messages, first because you have yet to season your speech with salt, and two, you do not direct your messages to me, but to "Brethren and Friends:".

In the event you can communicate in a respectful manner you can then anticipate a reply.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has offered the following excuses for “not responding” as follows:

“Mr. Saffold, I have not responded to your messages, first because you have yet to season your speech with salt”.

Well, Brethren, you can judge this one for yourself but it does indeed appear that the real reason Mr. Hanson does not respond is because of the fact that our words have been seasoned with entirely TOO MUCH SALT! For it is indeed embarrassing, I am sure, for Mr. Hanson when he falsely claims that he has never said that we are saved by “faith only” to then read that we have quoted his actual words wherein he did in fact say just that. Read up in this thread a few post and you will see where we pointed to the obvious and painful fact that he had deliberately lied to us about that matter. And this is just too much salt for him to take now isn’t it? He reacts to it just as a snail reacts to salt. He just “melts away” now doesn’t he? It is pretty clear why he has nothing to say about that now isn’t it. And you can rest assured that if I addressed that question directly to him he would continue to ignore it, now wouldn’t he? For we have pointed it out now three times for all to see and he has nothing to say.

And then his second excuse for not responding is:

“ and two, you do not direct your messages to me, but to "Brethren and Friends:".

Now, Brethren and friends, he knows full well that I was addressing him directly as Mr. Hanson until he had decided, of his own volition, that he would not respond to me and stated as much. Now, if one says he does not want to talk to you would you address him any more directly until he was willing to lift his “ban on direct conversation”? But he did not want to actually avoid making any effort to contradict some of the things we have said so he devised another way of doing so without addressing us directly at all. And this was fine with me. I simply responded to his remarks by addressing you concerning them and he could respond in kind and this way we would not be addressing one another directly which seemed to be too painful for him to bear. So it was in the spirit of honoring his desire to not address me anymore and at the same time prevent him from his devious efforts to respond to our words without addressing us by responding to him in a similar fashion. He should know that we would address false doctrine in any way that we deem appropriate whether he particularly likes that way or not. He will make his choices and we will make ours and our readers will judge what is the truth. And in the judgement God will judge us both. And that is the way it will be and there is nothing that he or anyone else can do about it, now is there?

And then he promises:

“In the event you can communicate in a respectful manner you can then anticipate a reply.”

Now, just here brethren Mr. Hanson has demonstrated that we cannot expect a reply from him on anything that is difficult for him to answer because of the simple fact that he considers our asking such difficult questions of him as being disrespectful! So, he is telling us now that I must go and reword my arguments and remove all of those “disrespectful” difficulties, which our arguments have caused him then he will answer us! And I am certain that if we would just let him state falsely that he “never said that one is saved by faith only” and not be so disrespectful as to point out the truth that he did actually say the following:

“

Now, that was disrespectful, now wasn’t it? And because it was so “disrespectful” for us to point out the truth that he had in fact said we are saved by faith only he will not respond to that severe inconsistency in his own words until we pretend that he never said what he actually said. Well, he can respond or ignore it for the rest of his life for all we care. But when he makes the claim again that he never said we are saved by “faith only”, and if we notice it, we will remind every one, whether he thinks it is disrespectful or not, that he did in fact say what he claimed to have never said. And that is our business and there is nothing that he can do to stop it, now is there? And if he does not want to explain it then that is his right. But our readers will see the truth and nothing will prevent honest and sincere persons from seeing it unless we just ignore it? Which we have now demonstrated that we are completely unwilling to do, now haven’t we? So we wait for him to either reply or repeat the same lie. In either case we are prepared to stand for the truth. And that is just the way it will be!

We have not been “disrespectful” to Mr. Hanson in any way whatsoever. He merely assumes but does not prove that we have said anything disrespectful concerning him. We have indeed treated his false doctrine with the just contempt that it deserves but we have shown no disrespect toward him personally. And when one tells that which is not true in a public forum it is not disrespectful to expose him for it by informing him and others of it. This we have done. And because Mr. Hanson has so identified himself with his doctrine he feels that he is being treated disrespectfully because his doctrine is being refuted with strong and harsh arguments. But that is the way it should be and anyone reading the attitude of the preachers of the New Testament when dealing with doctrines contrary to the doctrine of Christ will find the exact same attitude. Only they will read there arguments and statements that are far more harsh, logical, compelling, and sharp, than anything I have said to Mr. Hanson.

Nevertheless let me remind everyone that earlier Mr. Hanson’s excuse for not responding was that the Holy Spirit had “poured his over whelming love into me” as follows:

“Well Mr. Saffold you are going to have quite a hayday with this message, that is fine with me. Last Thursday I had quite the message to post for you and I could not get onto the link, it kept hanging on me which was frustrating, I even mailed my message to my home email account so I could attempt to post it from home. When I got home Thursday evening I still could not get to this link. I left Friday on a Weekend Advance - I am planting a new church in S. Boston - and the group of people that have responded to the new church were mostly Roman Catholic's. We centered the weekend on teaching these new believers about the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I myself went not only to co-lead the weekend but also expecting the Holy Spirit to refresh and speak to me as well. To make a long story short Mr. Saffold the Lord poured His overwhelming love into me, which has really transformed my focus. I have to say that to me this is miraculous. I am not sure if I am going to spend much more time here in this forum, but I wanted to tell you Mr. Saffold, that I love you. I really don't know you, but Jesus loves you, He died for you and desires to walk in fellowship with you. Therefore, if He loves you, I love you. I have decided not to post my lengthy reply I had prepared last Thursday, it does not seem so important at the moment. I am sure you will have much to say….it really does not matter to me now. I pray everyone here will truly come into an intimate relationship with Jesus - He desires true friendship with each of us.”

Now I want to point out that no one, including Mr. Hanson, bothered to notice in that thread that I did not have a “quite a hay day” with his message as he predicted. He was correct in stating that I could have had a “heyday” with it. But I did not because I am not interested in “heydays” but the truth. But he wrote those words to make it appear that I would so have a heyday as if that was my object. By not having a heyday with it I proved that notion to be wrong. But Mr. Hanson did not notice it, now did he? And that demonstrates a lack of objectivity and genuine concern by Mr. Hanson about being treated “respectfully”. He only whines about that when he is placed in a difficult position and he cannot answer an argument.

Now the above quotation from him was written after his being pressed very hard for answers to arguments that he had deliberately ignored. Indeed it is interesting that it was only after such pressure that Mr. Hanson had an “experience with the Holy Spirit” that according to him led him to not respond. And this happened at a time when I had always been referring directly to him and him alone as “Mr. Hanson” without addressing the larger audience of our brethren and friends who read this forum. So, his tactic at that time for avoiding the arguments that he could not answer was to blame the Holy Spirit. It was not because I had been “disrespectful” to him or that my “speech was not seasoned with salt” or that I had refused to address him directly. No brethren and friends, his excuse then was that the Holy Spirit had lead him not to respond by “pouring his overwhelming love” into Mr. Hanson! Now we can only ask which one is the truth? Was his earlier excuse the truth or was his present one? It could be that he is working on a list of “acceptable” excuses that he can use when he cannot respond to arguments that are difficult, if not down right impossible for him to answer, couldn’t it?

Now, it is only natural that if one has so refused to respond on such an absurd basis as the now three ignorant excuses he has offered that it would only irritate Mr. Hanson if I were to continue to badger him for a response. And therefore I have not done so but instead have responded to his continued efforts to teach that which is contrary to the gospel of Christ, which he makes without addressing me in particular. In fact, if everyone will simply notice it he does so in several instances without appearing to be responding directly to anyone. He does it without addressing anyone in particular, doesn’t he? Yet he expects us to respond to him by directly addressing him and to do so in such a gentile manner that we barely even mention the severe inconsistencies, deliberate deceptions, and his avoidance of the arguments that he has chosen to ignore. For if we mention those things we are considered by him to have been “disrespectful”!

But I have done so without directing my comments toward him but rather toward our wider audience of brethren and friends who read this forum including not only Mr. Hanson’s words but my own as well. And I have also done this because Mr. Hanson has sought in every place possible to respond to only small portions of my arguments without directly addressing me in his efforts to do so. He thinks that by doing this he will be keeping the letter of his promise not to respond to me any more until he thinks my “attitude” has improved. While at the same time having the luxury to respond while ignoring argumenst that he would rather not face in a public forum.

So, brethren, as long as false doctrines are being taught and I have the time and opportunity I will respond to it with the truth of God’s word. And just because Mr. Hanson seeks hypocritically to disguise his lame and partial responses to the things that we have said with the pretense that he is not responding to me. I will respond to his statements by addressing you and asking that you think about the things that he has said. And this is a reasonable way to respond to one who has chosen not to address me directly. If he will stop that charade then I will resume addressing my remarks to him directly. Until them I will continue to honor his desire to not address me directly by not enticing him to do so by addressing him directly.

And Mr. Hanson need not think that his arguments will be treated so gently that no one can see how they are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. That just will not happen. And he can chose whether he will respond to them or not and if he does he can chose how he will do so. Whether he will face them directly, ignore them, or address everyone except the one who made them. And we will respond as we please as well.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

I had intended in the above post concerning what Mr. Hanson had said to quote his words yet again but I noticed that I had failed to paste them in the place where you see a quotation mark with nothing following. Please read the following from him that I had intended to paste into that place:

"Now Mr. Hanson, in the above quote from him says “(Notice that I have never said “faith alone” as it has been falsely stated)”. Well brethren, if you will simply go to the thread entitled “Revival of an Old Discussion on Baptism” you will find the following remarks by Mr. Hanson, while discussing the exact same passage which he is now discussing. And therein you will find him clearly, emphatically and definitely saying what he NOW CLAIMS that he NEVER said as follows: “Moving on…you state… "The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he?" Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28. -- Barry R. Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), May 10, 2001.”

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001

As my point has been proven.

In the event you can communicate in a respectful manner you can then anticipate a reply.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson tells us:

“As my point has been proven.”

Do you see any evidence that he has offered to “prove” his point? He has proven nothing other than the simple fact that he just cannot answer the arguments and that he has proven conclusively.

Then he says:

“In the event you can communicate in a respectful manner you can then anticipate a reply.”

Mr. Hanson has an excuse for not replying to our arguments. He is satisfied with that excuse and we would not deprive him of it. We do not anticipate a reply from him under any conditions for he has demonstrated nothing more than his ability to run from the hard questions now hasn’t he? So we will let him avoid those matters as much as he likes but our readers will continue to see our responses to his false doctrine. And he need not anticipate that anyone who is faithful to Christ will have any respect whatsoever for his false doctrine of salvation by “faith ONLY”. Which he had at the beginning attempted to teach. And then when it was demonstrated clearly that such a position was contrary to the word of God he became ashamed of that position and attempted to leave our readers with the false impression that he had never said salvation was by “faith only”. And we have proven conclusively that he has lied about that. And there is really nothing he can say but to admit that he was not being truthful. And such an admission is something that he most assuredly has the right to avoid and we would not deprive him of his rights, now would we?

We are satisfied that he so recognized and felt the power of the arguments against “salvation by faith only” that he has now determined not only to deny that he ever said such a thing. But also he has apparently determined to never say such a thing again, at least in this forum. And we are especially pleased to note that he appears to have determined that he will NEVER say that salvation is by faith only AGAIN! And that would be a good thing except that he demonstrates that he has not given up on that false doctrine. Instead he has only realized that he cannot any longer attempt to teach it by boldly declaring that we are saved “by faith only” as he originally attempted to do for that will not work in this forum and he knows it. For that is so obviously contrary to what James says that he cannot avoid the truth that he is in direct opposition to the word of God delivered by the Holy Spirit through James, the brother of our Lord. For all of our readers now know that James said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).

So, we are content that we have at least assisted in stopping his mouth or his pen from saying falsely that we are saved by “faith only”. But we only regret that he has felt the need to lie by telling our readers that he had NEVER said such a thing.

And whether he ever takes up the task of responding to our arguments is of no real consequence to us. We will just continue to refute his false doctrines as he goes about seeking to deceive our readers by teaching these lies. And we will point it out quickly when we catch him in the act, as we have done already, of telling a deliberate lie to our readers. And we will thus expose such lying when we find it in any person who responds to this forum.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Yet again, my point has been proven.

In the event you can communicate in a respectful manner you can then anticipate a reply.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001