Was the repentant Thief really told he’d be in heaven with Jesus?greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
Brethren the following is my reponse to Mr. Hanson from the previous thread with the same title concerning the thief on the cross:"Brethren and Friends:
Mr. Hanson has addressed us all in an attempt to prove that the thief on the cross was not ever baptized at either the baptism of John or by the Disciples of Christ. (John4: 2). He quotes my word as follows:
“To All: It has been asked: "Now, unless Mr. Hanson can prove that this "thief" was never baptized at all in his life during this period of time he cannot prove that this thief was saved without being baptized."
Now in the above quotation of my words I have stated that if Mr. Hanson cannot prove that this thief was never baptized in his entire life then he cannot prove that the thief was saved without being baptized. And to this Mr. Hanson obviously agrees for he sets out to do that which he agrees that he must do in order to prove that the thief was saved without being baptized. Let us now examine his efforts and see how well he has “proven” that the thief was NEVER baptized by anyone in his entire life.
He begins by quoting the following verse of scripture:
“Let us take a look. Mark 1:4,5 "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, CONFESSING THEIR SINS."
Well, does this passage prove that the thief was not among those who were baptized by John confessing their sins? No, it does not. It only shows that which Mr. Hanson does not believe. He does not believe that baptism can be “for the remission of sins” now doesn’t he? But he quotes for us a passage that demonstrates that John’s baptism was indeed for the remission of sins even though he does not believe it to be true. Maybe he will tell us. If the thief had been baptized would he have received the remission of his sins as that was the purpose of this baptism?
Then he quotes Luke as follows:
“Luke 3:8 "BRING FORTH THEREFORE FRUITS WORTHY OF REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
Again does this verse say that John the Baptist or Christ disciples never baptized the thief for the remission of sins? No, it does not. It only gives further emphasis to the fact that John’s baptism was to be combined with repentance for the remission of sins just as is the baptism under the commission of Christ. For Peter said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38).
But he makes the following unfounded inferences from these two verses as follows:
“I suppose some will need a definition of REPENTANCE? To turn from your sin. John even goes on to state "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance".”
Well, again Mr. Hanson is wrong. WE really did not fail to understand the definition of repentance. We do indeed know and agree that it means to “turn from your sins”. But does this fact prove that the thief was not baptized at the baptism of John? Does it prove that he had never turned from his sins? When we turn from our sins God will forgive us there is no doubt. But if our sins involved breaking the just laws of society our repentance, though gaining for us the mercy and forgiveness of God will not necessarily gain for us the forgiveness of the law of men in society. We may still be required to “pay the utmost fathering” of any debt that we owe society. And God has not promised to spare us from the judgement of men in this regard, now has he? So, the fact that this thief was punished by the society in which he lived for crimes that God may have forgiven him for having committed if he had been baptized of John. It would not prove that he had not repented or that he had never been baptized, now would it? It would only prove that he was punished by man for crimes that God had forgiven him for having committed. So, the thief’s punishment is no evidence that he had not heard John the Baptist or Christ preach, repented and was baptized in accordance with their teaching, now is it?
But despite this obvious truth Mr. Hanson says:
“IF the THIEF on the cross had been baptized for the remission of sins and he had REPENTED then someone answer this question for me…. WHY WAS HE ON A CROSS AS A THIEF?????”
Well Mr. Hanson, though we have answered this for you in our above comments, as well as in our original post concerning this subject which you conveniently ignored we will answer it for you yet again. He was on the cross as a thief because he had been guilty of stealing, as he himself stated that he was being punished justly while stating that “this man (Christ) had done nothing amiss”. This thief was indeed guilty of stealing and was being punished for having committed that Crime. And that is why he was on the cross AS A THIEF! For the simple fact that he had been a thief. The thief himself admits as much, which is something that impenitent men do not generally do unless they are forced to. But this does not prove that he had not repented of the crimes he had committed and was baptized by John the Baptist, his disciples or by Christ through his disciples for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; John 4:2) now does it? It only proves that even if the thief had repented and had been baptized by John and God had forgiven him and he was now living right. Such repentance and baptism though it would obtain God’s forgiveness it would not prevent the Roman government. A government which was not only capable of crucifying an innocent man but was also capable of refusing to forgive a guilty man who had repented. We must not forget that the Roman government was opposed to the concept of forgiveness and the Christian ideas of forgiveness and offering mercy to the penitent. They were punishing men they perceived as having been criminals for crimes they were convinced that they had committed. It is entirely possible that this thief could have repented, submitted to the baptism of John and in his very act of repentance made himself known as a thief to the authorities and was found guilty and though God forgave him men did not. No one can prove that this was not possible or that it could not have occurred, now can they? So Mr. Hanson, the thief was on the cross as a thief because that is the crime that he was not only guilty of having committed. But it was also one that he was found to have been guilty of by the government of Rome and he was receiving the punishment required by law for his crime. It is indeed that simple. But because he was punished for that Crime does not prove that he had not repented of having committed it along with his other sins that he could have confessed at the baptism of John. In fact does Luke not tell us that the people were baptized of John “CONFESSING THEIR SINS”? And is it not possible that in the process of confessing their sins they also would confess certain crimes as well? And is it not possible that the authorities could have found this to be a convenient time, place and means of convicting some of them of crimes especially if they were trying to hinder the work of John, Christ and their disciples? Thus it could have been, and neither Mr. Hanson nor I can know whether this happened or not, now can we? We do not know and cannot know for God does not reveal it to us. We cannot know, and therefore cannot confidently deny the possibility that this very thief was found out to be a thief by virtue of the fact that when coming to the baptism of John or submitting to baptism under Christ disciples he confessed that he was a thief. And having done so it may have been found out by the authorities and he was taken by the them judged and condemned to die for his crime of which his own confession had proven him guilty? The fact that he was a thief and that he even admits his own guilt on the cross may or may not be just another good reason for thinking that he may have indeed been baptized at the baptism of John! But it definitely does not PROVE “beyond any doubt” as Mr. Hanson would like to believe that he “was not ever baptized” now does it?
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“If he had been baptized for the remission of sins, had repented of his sin and was living right, bearing fruits worthy of repentance - then any logical person would deduce that he would no longer be a thief.”
Now, we have shown how the fact that this thief may have no longer in the eyes of God been living the life of a thief he was nevertheless, because of his guilt crucified as a thief in the eyes of the Roman government. And the inspired word of God calls him exactly what he was. He was a thief. And the word of God calls him this because of its accuracy in stating the reason why he was on the cross. He was indeed crucified because he was a thief.
Then he says:
“ Yet the inspired words of Holy Writ call him a thief.”
Indeed he is called accurately by the word of God a thief. And no one denies it. But this fact does not prove that he had never been baptized in his life by either Christ disciples or the disciples of John now does it? For such were some of us who are now Christians and though we have repented of our sins and been baptized is it not possible that the government could yet prosecute us for crimes that we committed before that time if the “statue of limitations” has not expired? In fact, would is it not possible that we could in the process of seeking to make restitution for our past crimes that we could be proven to have been guilty of crimes by our own admission. And renewed commitment to telling the truth and be punished by a government that does not have “forgiveness” at the forefront of it’s system of justice? And if anyone were to give an accurate accounting of our punishment for the crime would they not justly call us a thief even though we had repented? And God was giving an inspired historically accurate account of what happened on that day and was therefore correct in stating that this man was a thief and the fact that he had repented would not change that in the least as far as the historical record was concerned. One could not go back over the Roman files and find a record of the punishment of a man who was a “penitent thief” but one who was in fact a thief.
But Mr. Hanson goes on to explain why he thinks the fact that God’s inspired word calls him a thief is proof that the thief could not have repented and been baptized as follows:
“ He would NOT be a THIEF if he had REPENTED, he would be living righteously bearing the FRUIT of REPENTANCE, which would mean he would not be on the cross as one bearing fruit of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Indeed this is true but only if he remained faithful to his new course of life that began with his repentance and baptism. This man, if he had repented and if he were living righteously bearing the fruit of righteousness would not actually BE a thief anymore. But he could still, because of his past life and in the context of explaining the reason he was being crucified be accurately described as a thief. Much like a person today can be called a convicted felon even after he had paid his debt to society especially in the context of explaining his being punished for something he had done in his past that had for years gone unnoticed until he had repented and confessed it.
But Mr. Hanson overlooks yet anther possibility with his above statement. For he says if this thief had repented he would be living righteously”. How does he know that to be truth? He would have been living righteously if he had not repented and turned back to his old ways some time afterward! His turning back to his old ways some time after his repentance does not mean that he never repented in the first place now does it? Well, we do not know how long it may have been from his possible repentance and baptism to his being found guilty of a crime and his being punished for it. He may have sincerely repented and was baptized and then later fell back into his old habits of life. We have an example of this happening to Simon in Acts 8. Read it for yourself.
“But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts 8:9-24).
Now from this example we see that Simon was baptized. And from the fact that under the gospel those who were proper subjects of baptism were those who had rented of their sins (Acts 2:38). It is clear that Simon had repented of his sins and was baptized just as were all of the Samaritans to whom Phillip had preached the gospel. And Simon was the kind of man that liked to put himself forth as being the “great power of God”. And we see that after he had been converted and had received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands he still fell back into his old habits of thinking and attempted to by the “gift of God with money”. Now the fact that he had repented and had been converted and was baptized did not prevent him from turning back to his former sinful habits of thought. Now did it?
Therefore, even if this man had repented and been baptized at John’s baptism would not have necessarily prevented him from turning back into his old sinful life and actually return to being a thief now would it? But his words to Christ on the cross, which we have explained and Mr. Hanson has failed to respond to indicate quite a bit of knowledge by this thief about Christ. And his coming kingdom and that the thief had reason to believe that Christ might remember him when he came into it. Is not even remotely possible that this thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John and later turned back to his old ways? Such things happen every day. Why would it have been impossible for this thief to have actually been a thief who had been baptized at the baptism of John and later turned back to a life of Crime and was now being punished for it? And he then asks Christ to remember him when he comes into his kingdom? Now, I cannot prove any of these possibilities. I have said as much in my previous post. But they are possibilities and unless and until Mr. Hanson or anyone else can prove that such was IMPOSSIBLE they cannot prove that this thief had never been baptized. I cannot prove that the thief was baptized. But I am not arguing that he was saved because he was baptized at the baptism of John. I have only stated that no one can affirm and prove that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized. For no one can prove that he was not baptized. And Mr. Hanson has made a feeble effort to do so but has failed miserably. For just the fact that he was crucified as a thief does not prove that he had never been baptized in his life, now does it?
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“It is obvious desperate people grasp at straws when their own theories do not pan out.”
Indeed this is true. For that is the reason why men grasp at the straw that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized even though there is no evidence that he was never baptized. For their human theories that we are saved by faith ONLY just do not “pan out” do they? But we are not grasping at any straws in this case. We are simply asking our friends who have made the statement that the thief had never been baptized to prove that it is true. For we are more than willing to accept that such may be the case and even if it were it would not change the fact that we must be baptized for the remission of sins. For the scriptures say, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) And Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16) So after the resurrection of Christ he stated that he would save those who believed and were baptized. And he did not promise to save anyone without baptism. And he did not point to the thief and say I will save you like he was saved without being baptized, now did he? It just might be that he knew that the thief had been baptized. But we do not know and neither does Mr. Hanson or anyone else whether the thief on the cross was baptized or not. But if one is going to tell their fellowmen, family, friends and relatives that they can be saved without being baptized as the Lord Commanded them to do. Because the thief on the cross was saved and he was not baptized. They had better be able to prove not only that the thief was NEVER baptized, they must also be able to prove that Christ will save anyone else in the same way today even though he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“The THIEF on the cross was not baptized for the remission of his sins, the facts and evidence telling us he was still a thief,”
Well again Mr. Hanson speaks without offering any evidence to prove his point. As we have shown above the fact that he was a thief does not prove that he had never in his life repented and submitted to baptism at either the hands of the disciples of John or Christ. AS we have stated he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins and still have been called a thief in the context of describing why he was crucified on the cross. For repentance brings the forgiveness of God but it will not release anyone from their responsibility before the Law of the land for crime committed though they had long since repented of them. Or he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins and later returned to his old habits of life and was caught and crucified for his crimes.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ thus he was not saved because of his good works or acts of obedience” No one is talking about the thief being saved by “good works” nor are we talking about his being saved by “acts of obedience alone. WE are discussing whether Mr. Hanson can prove that the thief was saved without having been baptized. And he has yet to prove to us that this thief could never under any circumstances whatsoever been baptized at the baptism of John. He has tried and though his efforts were feeble they were sincere. But they just do not prove that the thief could never have been baptized at John’s baptism. Now do they.
Then he says more that he cannot prove:
“ but just as every person is redeemed, by grace through faith NOT of works lest any man should boast.”
Indeed when we by faith obey the command of Christ to be baptized we are saved by “faith through Grace”. If we look at the fact that Ephesians 2:8 says, “by grace are ye saved through faith”. Then we look to how the Ephesians were saved “by grace through faith” we find that it included baptism. Read it for yourself. Look at acts 19:1-6 when the Ephesians were “saved by grace through faith”. There we are told of a man who had come to Ephesus teaching the baptism of John long after the resurrection of Christ and his commanding that men be baptized in his name had been in effect.
“And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Pricilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28).
Now this was proof that long after Christ had given the great commission and the baptism of John was not longer in effect there were still men who had been baptized at the baptism of John still teaching it for they knew nothing else. Apollos was one of these teachers. And we are told that Pricilla and Aquilla taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly but nothing is said that he had to be baptized again, absolutely nothing. And we do not know but this could have been because he had been baptized during the time when the baptism of John was in effect and it was God’s will those men so be baptized. For God would not promise them remission of sins upon being baptized by John and then not fulfill his promise, now would he. But God, after the resurrection of Christ promised the remission of sins only to those who would “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). And thus those baptized in the baptism of John without being baptized in the name of Christ would no longer be granted the forgiveness of their sins. And for this reason it would be necessary for Christians to correct those who were still baptizing according to John’s baptism after the baptism in the name of Christ was required. But, as in the case here of Apollos they would not have to baptism them again if they had been baptized at the baptism of John before Christ died and was raised and instituted baptism in the name Christ.
But in the next chapter Paul also runs into some people who had been baptized in the baptism of John. And these most likely were among those who had been taught by Apollos at Ephesus the baptism of John only. This is what the inspired record tells us of how they were saved by grace through faith.
“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 here Paul finds some more disciples. And he asked them, “have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said that they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit! And then Paul recognized immediately that something was wrong with their baptism! SO he asked, “unto what then were ye baptized? And they said JOHN”S BAPTISM. And Paul said to them that “John verily baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Jesus Christ. Then when they heard this they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they received the Holy Spirit after Paul laid his hands upon them.
Now these disciples, who may have been taught by Apollos or someone else like him, were required to be baptized in the name of Christ for it is very likely that they had been baptized in the baptism of John after it had no longer been in effect. Thus we have Apollos who was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly who was not, as far as the record is concerned required to be baptized again. And these in Ephesus who were “saved by grace through faith” according to Paul’s words to them (Eph. 2:8) when they were baptized in the name of Christ. Thus when we look at how the Ephesians were originally converted or “saved by grace through faith” in Acts 19:1-6 we see that it was when they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So if you want to be saved by Grace through faith as were the Ephesians to who Paul wrote the words, “by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8) you must be baptized in the name of Christ for that is how they were saved by grace through faith. You cannot do it, as Mr. Hanson would have you to do it. You cannot be saved by grace through “faith ONLY” as Mr. Hanson falsely teaches.
I will continue:
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
Then M. Hanson is very proud of his feeble attempt to prove that the thief was NEVER baptized as follows:“Thus we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the THIEF on the cross had never been baptized for the remission of sins upon his REPENTING from his sin as he was not bringing forth the fruit of repentance.”
Well, we can see that Mr. Hanson has adamantly affirmed his above statement but we do not have from him any proof at all much less proof “beyond a shadow of doubt”! For we have shown from our above response to his nonsense on the thief that his assumptions are without any basis in fact whatsoever. His only argument is that because the thief was a thief he could not have ever been baptized in his life! Now that is circular reasoning. He says the thief was never baptized. And we asked how do you know and he says because he was a thief. And the assumption is that we would all just know that it is impossible for a person who is a thief to have ever repented in his lifetime! And if we ask how do you know that he had never been baptized again we are told that he was a thief. And no thief could have ever been baptized by John the Baptist least of all the thief that Mr. Hanson. Who is so desperately grasping at straws must be able to use to support his false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY. For he cannot possibly admit that his foolish contention that man can be saved without obeying the Lord’s command to be baptized is based upon the assumption that this thief had never been baptized. And when he is asked to prove that the thief had never been baptized the only reason he can give is that he was a thief. But the fact that he was a thief proves nothing at all about whether he had ever in his lifetime repented of being a thief and it certainly proves nothing about whether he had ever been baptized. AS we have shown above. There is no proof that this thief had not repented and was baptized and later convinced of these crimes by the Romans and punished for them even though he had been forgiven by God.
And we have further shown that is very possible that this thief had genuinely repented, was baptized and forgiven and later turned back to his life of crime. And unless Mr. Hanson can prove that these things could not ever under any circumstance have actually occurred then he has not removed all “shadow of doubt” as he pretends and imagines that he has done.
Then he says:
“ I will bolster my position with a quote from Mr. Saffold… "And if their sins are not for given they will "die in their sins" and be lost eternally because they have not obeyed the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8,9)."
Now that is funny! I do not have a sense of humor at all but this one does make me laugh! Indeed it is true that if ones sins are not forgiven they will indeed die in their sins. But that does not bolster Mr. Hanson’s position concerning his assertion that the thief on the cross had never been baptized in the least. For he has not proven that the thief had never repented of his sins and that he had never been baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins.
And it does not bolster his position that we are saved by grace through faith ONLY either. SO we cannot see how this passage could “bolster any of Mr. Hanson's affirmations concerning the thief. In fact, it disproves his notions. For if the thief had never repented he would have died in his sins for Christ will not forgive the impenitent sinner. Yet Mr. Hanson claims that the thief was SAVED. Therefore even he must admit that this thief had REPENTED even though he is still called by the inspired word of God a “thief”! It is indeed funny how the legs of the lame are often unequal, isn’t it? He says the thief was called a thief therefore he could not have repented. And then he seeks to “bolster his argument from “Mr. Saffold” who quoted Jesus who said “if their sins are not forgiven they will die in their sins” Even though he argues that the thief was saved. Was he saved without being forgiven Mr. Hanson? Was he forgiven without repenting of his sins? No, Mr. Hanson the fact that he was saved is proof enough in itself that he had repented of his sins and it is also a strong reason to believe that he may have repented at the baptism of John. Now we do not know when he repented we only know that he did repent. For Christ said, “I tell you nay, but except ye repent ye shall all like wise perish” (Luke 13:3-5) And we are told, that Christ commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) and all men every where would include the thief on the cross. And the problem is that Mr. Hanson spends a lot of time claiming that the thief could not have repented because was on the cross as a thief. But he adamantly affirms that he was saved. Are we to conclude that this man was saved without repenting of his sins? And if he could not be saved without repenting of his sins how does Mr. Hanson know when he repented of his sins? He could have repented long before he ever went to the cross if he had confessed his sins at the baptism of John and Mr. Hanson is helpless to prove that it was impossible, now isn’t he?
Then he says:
“It is something that Mr. Saffold would mention obeying the gospel and then contradict himself by saying that the man dying on the cross IS a thief.”
There is no contradiction here. It is possible, as I have explained above that the thief had repented and been baptized at the baptism of John and later fell back into his old sins. And thus he would actually be a thief on the cross. And it is also possible that he had repented and confessed his sin at the baptism of John. And that he was crucified as a thief and the inspired record accurately describes the facts concerning why the authorities crucified him as a thief even though God had forgiven him of his sins prior to that time. For the fact that he was forgiven would not prevent his being punished for his crimes and his being punished as a thief. And there is no way that God could have told us why this person was being crucified without telling the truth that he was crucified as a thief. But this fact would not mean that he had not repented and that he had never been baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Either the "thief" was baptized for the remission of sins, REPENTED of his sin (which would include theft!) and then OBEYED THE GOSPEL (brought forth the fruit of repentance) or, he had not been baptized, repented, living right and was always a thief.”
Our above argument sufficiently deals with this. It is also perfectly possible that the thief repented and was baptized for the remission of sins was forgiven and later punished for crimes that he had long since repented for having committed. And it is also possible that he repented and was baptized for the remission of sins and later returned to his sinful life like Simon the sorcerer and was then turned to Christ on the cross penitently for forgiveness. WE do not know. But one thing is for certain; Mr. Hanson is a long way from proving that this is impossible. And the fact that the thief is called a thief does nothing to make these possibilities impossible! The two possibilities offered by Mr. Hanson that is listed above are not the only possibilities that are available now are they?
Then he says:
“Yet we see him dying on a cross as a thief, which means he had NOT been baptized and repented of his sin.”
Again we have show this to be false to the core. The fact that he was dying as a thief does not mean he HAD NOT repented and that he had NEVER BEEN BAPTISED at the baptism of John now does it? For what if he had at one time repented and was baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins and then later returned to his life as a thief? Is it impossible that he would be dying on the cross as a thief if this happened? Is it impossible that this happened? If it is impossible we have not heard any proof of it from Mr. Hanson, now have we?
And do not forget that Mr. Hanson contends that this thief was saved on the cross, doesn’t he? Is he therefore contending that this thief was saved without even repenting of his sins? And if he did repent of his sins can Mr. Hanson prove to us WHEN he repented?
Then Mr. Hanson speaks profoundly as follow:
“ Either he was baptized and repented or he wasn't.”
Now there is a brilliant piece of work isn’t it brethren? Why that is so brilliant that everyone simply must agree! Indeed we do agree! Either he was baptized or he wasn’t. Now that is a fact! And the truth is that neither Mr. Hanson nor myself can prove which one it is, now can we? But in order for Mr. Hanson to claim that people today can be saved without being baptized “LIKE THE THIEF ON THE CROSS” he must prove that the thief could not have been and never was baptized. And thus far he has failed miserably to do so.
Then Mr. Hanson says: “ The facts tell us, he did not repent was not bringing for the fruit of repentance, that would evidence a remission of sins, and thus was not water baptized.”
What facts tell us this Mr. Hanson? You have not pointed to any facts, which conclusively demonstrate that the thief never repented and was never baptized. And even you say he was saved. Was he saved without even repenting for having lived the life of a thief? I do not think so. For Christ demands repentance of every man even the thief. SO do tell us Mr. Hanson how this thief could be saved without repentance and prove to us that he had NEVER REPENTED. Where are the so-called “facts” that prove the thief was saved while he was an impenitent sinner. And explain the justice of God in saving one impenitent sinner on one side of the cross and neglecting to save the other impenitent sinner on the other side.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“According to Mr. Saffold, a person who does not obey the gospel is not saved, thus, the thief in not obeying (thou shalt not steal) has not been saved.”
“No my friends it is not “according to Mr. Saffold. It is according to the word of God. For we are told, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”
And this refers to those who lived after Christ was raised from the dead and the gospel began to be preached beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-49). It does not apply to the thief who lived under the old Covenant as we have already discussed. But that does not change the fact that the baptism of John was required of men during the time that this thief lived. For we are told that those who rejected Johns baptism rejected the “counsel of God against themselves. (Luke 7:29,30).
But Mr. Hanson fails to understand what the gospel is. “Thou shalt not steal is not a part of the gospel of Christ it is from the Law of Moses. Indeed under the Law of Christ or the LAW of faith (Romans 3:27) Christians are forbidden to steal. But “thou shalt not steal is not the gospel of Christ. Paul tells us what the Gospel is as follows:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Thus when one obeys the gospel of Christ he must obey the “death burial and resurrection of Christ and there is only one way to do that as were are told by Paul in Romans 6:3-6; 16-18. When we are baptized we are buried with Christ and raised with him to walk a new life. But the thief was not required under the Old Testament law to “obey the gospel”.
So even though he had sinned by stealing he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John. And the fact, as we have shown above that he was crucified as a thief does not prevent this at all. In fact, is it not interesting that the thief does not ask Christ to SAVE him? He says to Christ, “LORD” now how did this thief know Christ was LORD? And he, instead of saying "SAVE ME" he says “remember me”? Why would this thief have any expectation that a total stranger should remember him? And then he says, “when thou comest into thy kingdom” Now how did the thief know that Christ had a kingdom and that he was coming into it even though he was dying on the cross? No, my friends there is entirely too much knowledge here concerning Christ and his mission for this thief to have been one who had never heard at least the preaching of either John the Baptist, Christ, or their disciples. And if he believed those things so that he would depend upon them at his death is it not at least possible that the thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins? One thing is certain, no one can prove that this is impossible and Mr. Hanson has not given us any good reasons to believe that the thief was never baptized. We have neither need nor any reason to believe that he was baptized but Mr. Hanson desperately needs to prove that he was not. For his false doctrine that men can be saved today without being baptized just like the thief on the cross depends upon it.
For Christ and those who love the truth,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
Brethren and friends we continue our response to Mr. Hanson's post in the previous thread of the same title:Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Which means he was not water baptized,”
It means no such thing. If a man steals some thing after having been baptized doe s that mean he had never been baptized at all? No it does not. And it does not mean that his baptism was insincere necessarily either. For men have often proven that they can be very sincere and filled with faith today and later be quite the opposite, can’t they?
Then he says:
“and even if he were water baptized, is proven to be a thief, and the baptism was not done in faith.”
This is not true either as we have shown from the example of Simon above. For the scriptures says he believed (meaning he had faith) and he was baptized (Acts 8:9-12) and he later sinned by seeking to buy the gift of God with money and was in the “gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:9-24). SO the fact that one is baptized and later is proven to have sinned in any way, including being a thief does not prove that his baptism was not done in faith. For Simon was baptized in faith and later sinned. And the thief on the cross could have done the same thing for all that Mr. Hanson knows and has been able to demonstrate to us in his response.
Then he becomes delusional again as follows:
“ Thus, the THIEF in not living in obedience has proven that he was not water baptized.”
Hogwash! Mr. Hanson just because one turns from the faith does not prove he had never been baptized! Now that argument is so pathetic that it hardly deserves any response. Living in disobedience would not prove anything about whether one has been baptized or not. It may well prove that he is not faithful to his original determination to serve Christ but it does not prove he was never baptized.
“I could continue to belabor the point, however, it would be fruitless because this is not a forum for discussion but a medium of people bashing.”
Nonsense Mr. Hanson! The reason you do not continue to “belabor” the point is that you have only made one argument to prove that the thief was never baptized and it is tantamount to the fact that he was a thief is proof that he could never have been baptized. And the reason you cannot discuss it further is that you have run out of things to say and you are tired of repeating the same old helpless argument over and over. And we are thankful that you have finally gotten tired of repeating your futile argument knowing al along while repeating it that it is so easily answered! Ha!
No, Mr. Hanson this forum is indeed a discussion forum and the only thing being bashed in our discussion is your pathetic arguments and feeble attempts to support the erroneous false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY. I have said nothing personally about you in this forum except the one time that you lied to us and that was not personal by informative.
Then you say:
“Someone may ask "people bashing"? You judge for yourself…Mr. Saffold writes… "Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous reasoning that the thief was redeemed under the New Testament rather than under the Old Testament."
Now that is a good example of how wrong you are about people bashing. Yes friends read what I said to Mr. Hanson. I did not “bash Mr. Hanson you will notice that I bashed his argument. I said, “Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous REASONING…” I did not bash the person of Mr. Hanson but rather the reasoning or argument of Mr. Hanson. And in doing so I spoke the truth about his arguments.
But Mr. Hanson thinks that I belittled him because I belittled his reasoning.
“Would a person who is interested in dialogue belittle others by claiming their reasoning is "ridiculous". “
Yes indeed a person who is interested in “dialogue” is very much willing to belittle those who pretend to want dialogue but then avoid it by being ridiculous in their reasoning as Mr. Hanson has often done. And every time you reason in a ridiculous manner Mr. Hanson I will call it what it is. But remember it is not your person that I am attacking but your reasoning.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“I believe that "fruit of righteousness" would be to love their neighbor as themselves, unless Mr. Saffold would like to characterize his own intelligence in such a derogatory manner I would suggest that Mr. Saffold has yet to obey the commandments of Jesus.”
Mr. Hanson, I have often characterized even my own reasoning when I found it to be ridiculous in very derogatory and truthful terminology. Because the one thing that a man can easily do is to become so proud of his intellect that he can miss the truth by a mile if he is too proud to admit when his reasoning is ridiculous. So, yes, anytime that my reasoning proves to be ridiculous I would appreciate anyone telling me that it is ridiculous if they are willing to take the time to show me why it is ridiculous. You are welcome to refer to my reasoning in the same manner but I will expect you to follow it with evidence that makes you believe it is such. That is what I do to others, including you and I do not expect anyone else to treat me any differently. SO, the fact is that Mr. Saffold has indeed followed the commands of Jesus. For I am indeed treating others the way I would like to be treated. I would appreciate others who would care enough to stay up late at night and find ways in which my reasoning is flawed or even ridiculous and spend time to show me the way of the Lord More perfectly. And the fact that you do not appreciate such is only a reflection upon your self- centered nature. You are more concerned with yourself and how you are being treated than you are in the truth and how it is being treated.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ Thus, according to his own logic, he is not a disciple of Christ because he has not purified his soul in obeying the truth via the command to love.”
Oh, I do love and I obey the command to love all the time Mr. Hanson especially when I spend these later hours writing to correct your pathetic errors. It is love for God, Christ, and the truth and the doctrine of Christ and the cause of Christ and all of the lost men of the world and the church and my brethren that moves me to write these things. But I would not expect you to understand love from that perspective. All you can see is that “sweetness is love”. But the truth is that love is often self-sacrificing and stern!
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Also, I have requested that Mr. Saffold attempt to communicate in a respectful manner and apparently he is not capable - another failure to obey the command of Scripture?”
Mr. Hanson I am communicating in a correct manner and my respect is reserved for the truth. No man who shows disrespect toward the doctrine of Christ is going to be approached in a respectful manner by those who love the truth. Indeed it may be true that I am just not “capable” of showing great respect for one that despises the truth and the doctrine of Christ as those who teach false doctrines. 1 Peter 3:15 "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" Now the above passage is referring to how we are to treat honest persons who ask us for a reason for the hope that is in us. It is not referring to how we are to treat false teachers who come to us in “sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are raving wolves”. For we are told how we are to behave toward those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ as follow:
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9-11). So, Mr. Hanson should not expect that we will “bid him Godspeed” for we will not be a partaker in his evil deeds.
Then he says:
“I have amply proven the point.”
No Mr. Hanson you are imagining things again. You have proven nothing but that you are incapable of proving anything.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ The THIEF had not produced fruit of righteousness that would evidence repentance following water baptism.”
The thief may have produced much fruit of righteousness that you know nothing about Mr. Hanson before he returned to his life of crime. And even you admit that he was saved but you forget that no one will be saved from sins without repenting that they may be blotted out (Acts 3:19; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). So your assumptions about “fruit” are barren and “fruitless” indeed!
Then he says:
“This evidence is strengthened by the FACT that Jesus did not institute baptism in His name until AFTER the resurrection.”
This proves nothing about whether the thief on the cross was baptized or not and therefore cannot strengthen your feeble argument in any way whatsoever. It is true that Christ did not institute baptism in his name until AFTER his resurrection. But God did send John the Baptist to prepare the way of the Lord and make his paths straight. And he came preaching a repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and he cam baptizing “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) and Christ baptized more disciples than John (John 4:2) so there was a lot of baptizing going on during the ministry of John and Christ. And after the resurrection that same baptism in water became essential to salvation (Mark 16:16) and required the same “repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. The primary difference was that now it was being done in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit.
Then Mr. Hanson continues:
“To address this point of the testator being dead in order for the covenant to be in effect….Jesus had died BEFORE the thief…thus making the covenant in full effect!”
Now this pathetic argument is so foolish and indeed ridiculous that it is hard to respond without breaking out in a burst of laughter! The thief was saved before our lord died on the cross. Indeed Christ died before the thief but he said “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise BEFORE HE DIED now didn’t he? And if that statement was a promise of salvation as you claim that it is then the thief was saved before Christ died, now wasn’t he? I would characterize your above argument as down right STUPID!
Then Mr. Hanson continues his absurdities:
“ Simple enough. Jesus knew He would die first thus bringing the thief under the New Covenant and prompting Him to say, TODAY you will be with me in Paradise.”
Hogwash! Tell us Mr. Hanson, according to your false doctrine, the thief would have been saved the “moment he believed”. Was this the case with this thief? Was he saved according to your false doctrine of salvation by faith only the moment that he believed? If so then he was saved before Christ died. But the truth is that you have not proven that he could not have been saved before he even came to the cross by repenting and being baptized at the baptism of John. And you have not proven that he was not saved when Jesus said this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. Were those words from Christ a promise of salvation or not? If it was then it is obvious to any thinking person that Christ said those words while he was yet alive, didn’t he?
Then Mr. Hanson continues:
“John 19:33 "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:"
This only proves that Christ died before the thief it does not prove that Christ did not save the thief before he died, now does it?
Then we are back to Mr. Hanson's false accusations as follows:
“Mr. Saffold feels the need to continue to state his points with arrogance and harshness - perhaps a result of attempting to gain his salvation by good works?”
No, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Saffold is not seeking any salvation by good works alone. He is seeking it the way the scriptures teach him to seek it by a living faith that is wrought with works and perfects it. (James 2:22) For we are told that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). And ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Mr. Saffold has been save in obedience to the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4) as we all those who in the new testament received the remission of sins by “repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And he is not expecting to be saved by having a discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is hoping to help Mr. Hanson and those like him to turn from false doctrine that they might be saved in obedience to the gospel of Christ.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ As the Scriptures plainly state "not of works, lest any man should boast" - their should be not hint of pride in our lives because we are incapable of working our way to heaven.”
No one has said that we could “work our way to heaven” unless you believe that such is what James meant. But we do not. We believe that faith wrought with works will justify a man as does Paul and James. We believe that it is not by faith only nor by works only but by a faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ Yet when one believes they have contributed, a sense of pride and arrogance wells up and we have boasting and the belittlement of others.”
No one believes that we have “contributed” Mr. Hanson. We simply believe we have obeyed Christ our Lord as he commanded us because we love him. And obedience is essential to salvation because Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9). And those who teach false doctrines belittle themselves and worse they belittle Christ who is the truth. For not only did grace come by Jesus Christ but GRACE AND TRUTH (John 1:17).
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
And now brethren I finish my reponse to Mr. Hanson's post as follows:Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ I leave the decision to those with discernment to judge for themselves - who is showing the fruit of repentance in the simplest context of this conversation?”
WE too will leave that to the judgement of those who know the truth.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Next, I made the statement… "People who had, prior to the resurrection, participated in the baptism of repentance were re-baptized, after the resurrection in Jesus name."
I have already discussed this above in this post. Not all of those who were baptized at the baptism of John had to be baptized again and I gave the example of Apollos who was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly but was not required to be baptized again so far as the record is concerned.
And then Mr. Hanson said:
“Then Mr. Saffold goes on to bolster my point with Scripture….Acts 19:1-6. These new believers had been baptized by John and Paul had to re-baptize them in Jesus' name.”
Mr. Hanson is again imagining things. I have not gone on to “bolster his point at all. As I have shown above these disciples had to be baptized in the name of Christ because they were likely baptized by one like Apollos in the baptism of John after the death of Christ when baptism in the name of Christ was instituted. But there is no evidence that those who were baptized for the remission of their sins at the baptism of John ever needed to be baptized again.
So, my quotation of the above scripture does not “bolster” Mr. Hanson's argument in the least. Now I admit that his argument needs quite a bit of “bolstering” for it is indeed week and for this reason he is constantly seeking help from me in bolstering it. But he fails miserably to get any help from anything that I have said thus far.
Then we reach his final remarks as follows:
“Finally,Mr. Saffold I will ask you, refrain from the silly comments and stick to the point.”
Mr. Hanson cannot point to a single work that I have said that was a silly comment now can he? And his problem is not that I do not stick to the point. He is whining because I “stick him with the point” and that is the reason for his complaining and whining as if he has been sorely mistreated! But it is his pathetic and feeble arguments that have been justly attacked and not his person.
Then he says:
“I can only continue to express to you the love of Christ.”
Now brethren and friends you should know that one who does not teach that which is true cannot “express the love of Christ” to anyone. For truth and lies do not mingle together. And when Mr. Hanson lied to us claiming that he had never said that salvation was by faith only he was not expressing the love of Christ. And when Mr. Hanson teaches that one can be saved with obeying the command of Christ, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). And the command to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). He cannot be expressing the love of Christ but rather the lies of Satan.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ As I am deserving of punishment, but because of the Grace of God have received forgiveness for my sin through faith,”
Indeed we are saved by God’s grace and through faith but we are not saved by faith only as Mr. Hanson falsely teaches and he did not obtain forgiveness by faith only as he has been trying to teach. But at least he has learned now not to say we are openly we are saved by faith ONLY for he knows that is not taught anywhere in the scriptures, doesn’t he! If one has not repented of sins he will not be forgiven of them no matter how much faith he has. (Acts 3:19) and if he refuses to be baptized he will not receive the remission of sins for baptism in the name of Christ is indeed FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“I am no better than any other person on this planet and thus am extremely grateful.”
WE have no doubt that this is true. And we are not better than anyone is either and have never said that we were. But the truth of God’s word concerning obedience to the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). And obedience to Christ who is the author or eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). Are far superior to the false doctrines of men concerning salvation by FAITH ONLY taught by our friend Mr. Hanson.
Brethren do not forget that James said:
“YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).
For Christ and those who love the truth in him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
Mr. Saffold you fail to display the love of Christ, you fail to display the humility of Christ, you fail to communicate in a manner conducive to a healthy and positive dialogue and I deem you unworthy of any more of my time.It is interesting as I have gone back over the some old threads and discovered I am not the first person to have this type of problem with your arrogance.
Indeed pride is a diabolical root that permeates ones soul until even one's speech is corrupt.
It is my observation Mr. Saffold that for all the talk you have yet to obey - a head full and a heart empty - missing Jesus by 16 inches.
I will hope that some day the Love of Christ will be made real to your life.
I bid you farewell,
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
Brethren and Friends:Mr. Hanson has said:
“Mr. Saffold you fail to display the love of Christ,”
Now Mr. Hanson and I have been discussing a matter important to the souls of men who would come to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. And anyone who is standing firm for the truth as taught by Christ concerning the forgiveness available to them in obedience to the commands of Christ by faith is indeed protecting them from failing to obtain mercy which Christ in His great love died to provide for us. I am not here to “display” anything. I am here defending the doctrine of Christ which was delivered to us by the Holy Spirit once for all (Jude 3) because of the LOVE OF CHRIST. And Christ said, “if ye love me keep my commandments”. I am not here to pretend that I am the embodiment of Christ’s love. For the gospel is just that and those who obey it will receive the benefits of Christ love. Those who are led away by false teacher and are deceived into believing the lie that they can be saved from their sins without obeying Christ are being lead away from the very purpose of the love of Christ. He loved us and died for us that he might redeem us by the gospel and anyone who opposes the gospel f Christ is opposed to the love of Christ. Only those who love and obey and teach the truth of God’s word have anything to do with the love of Christ.
Then we are told that Mr. Saffold:
“ you fail to display the humility of Christ,”
I am not writing in this forum to make any hypocritical “displays” of my own love or humility. Making such deliberate efforts to “display” humility is the very height of ARROGANCE. You will never see any strained efforts to make such “displays” of humility by E. Lee Saffold. Especially when he is “contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. For such “contention” is by it’s very nature contrary to the misinformed and false perceptions of genuine “humility” held by many among those who call themselves Christian today. No one would doubt the humility of Christ who truly understands the real meaning of humility. And if the “money Changers in the temple” had the save false notion of “humility” that Mr. Hanson demonstrates they would have most assuredly accused Christ of not being very “humble” when he cast those hypocrites out of the temple. For you see he loved the “house of God” more than any impression he might make upon hypocritical men. For he cast them out because it was written, “my house shall be called a house of prayer” but ye have made it a den of thieves. And those who teach false doctrine are thieves of the precious souls of men. And Brethren we must be about the business of “casting such out” of the house of God! But you will indeed be accused of failing to “display humility” when you do it. And if you cannot bear to be falsely accused for Christ sake then you have not the strength of faith to withstand the onslaught of Satan through his servants the false teachers of the world. Who pretend to be servants of Christ while denying all that He taught and commanded us to believe and do.
Then Mr. Hanson tells us: “ you fail to communicate in a manner conducive to a healthy and positive dialogue”
This is easily translated, brethren. E. Lee Saffold has not communicated in a manner with Mr. Hanson that is “conducive” to his extremely unhealthy; feeble attempts to teach that which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. For there is nothing “healthy or positive” about doctrines, such as the false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY, which are diametrically opposed to the truth of the doctrine of Christ. And I most assuredly will never “communicate in a manner” conducive to the good health and positive support of that which is false and contrary to the truth of God found only in the precious doctrine of Christ. You will not find me giving willing support and most assuredly “bidding Godspeed to those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ into this forum. There will be no pretense about these matter brethren. I am now and will ever be opposed to anything that is counter to the doctrine of Christ and that is the way it will be and there is just nothing that anyone can do about it, now is there?
Then Mr. Hanson gives me the greatest complement a false teacher can give to a servant of Christ. He says:
“and I deem you unworthy of any more of my time.”
May it ever be brethren that all of those who seek to teach doctrines contrary to the doctrine of Christ determine that we are “unworthy” of ANY of their time! But I will tell you now that false teachers who seek to oppose the truth need to know that we will always consider opposing their pernicious doctrines indeed a worthy use of our time while on this earth. For the souls of men are at stake.
Then Mr. Hanson states:
“It is interesting as I have gone back over the some old threads and discovered I am not the first person to have this type of problem with your arrogance.”
Indeed brethren, Mr. Hanson is not the first false teacher to “have a problem” with my so-called “arrogant” unwillingness to provide a forum “conducive” to his efforts to promote his pernicious and false doctrines that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ and he will not be the last.
Then he says:
“Indeed pride is a diabolical root that permeates ones soul until even one's speech is corrupt.”
This is a fact, Brethren. Pride is indeed is diabolical isn’t it? And those who are so proud of their own false doctrines that they are even willing to oppose the very doctrine of Christ are indeed diabolical! And may God grant that we will ever oppose those, such as Mr. Hanson, who are so proud to teach that which is opposite of the doctrine of Christ and resist them fiercely.
Then Mr. Hanson gives us his “parting observation” as follows:
“It is my observation Mr. Saffold that for all the talk you have yet to obey - a head full and a heart empty - missing Jesus by 16 inches.”
Now here he makes the common error of thinking that a “full head” is equivalent to an “empty heart”. But we are told that the mind, which resides in the head and is the seat of our thoughts, imaginations, emotions and will, is the heart.
“So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, [and] apply thine heart to understanding;” (Proverbs 2:2)
“My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:”(Proverbs 3:3)
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Pro. 3:5)
“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it [are] the issues of life.” (Pro. 4:23).
“For as a man thinketh in his heart so is he”. (Pro. 23:7)
“Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall [a child] be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” (Gen. 17:17)
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin ye became the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17,18).
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:10).
“Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.” (Heb. 3:10)
“The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.” (Proverbs 15:28).
So it is obvious to anyone who understands the word of God that a “full head” is a “full heart”. And none could expect anyone with an “empty head” to have even the slightest idea of the condition of even his own heart much less the hearts of those who defend the truth of the gospel of Christ.
Then he expresses the following hope:
“I will hope that some day the Love of Christ will be made real to your life.”
Now he has no way of knowing just how real the “love of Christ is in the life of those who follow the doctrine of Christ and obey him in all things. For he forgets that Christ said, “if ye love me keep my commandments.
Then he bids us farewell:
“I bid you farewell,”
WE do not say “farewell” to Mr. Hanson for we know that he is not going anywhere and that if he does he will return to teach that which is false and we will continue to oppose him in it.
For Christ and those who love the truth in him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
E. Lee, This all is a bit silly, isn't it? You are arguing from silence. Do you believe the thief was baptized? If so, what Scripture reference states or implies such?In Christ, Barry Davis http://pastorshelper.faithweb.com
-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001
Now Brethren:
Mr. Hanson cannot really respond to our arguments so he seeks to misrepresent them as follows:
“E. Lee, This all is a bit silly, isn't it? You are arguing from silence. Do you believe the thief was baptized? If so, what Scripture reference states or implies such?”
Now this is funny, brethren! Mr. Hanson does not want to answer the arguments that I have already given him in ample supply, does he? He just wants to ignore them and ask me to supply more! Ha! Answer the arguments we have made thus far Mr. Hanson if you can. And then we will be happy to supply more. Eat what is on your plate before trying to persuade us to prepare another meal for you!
Mr. Hanson is admitting that he cannot prove that the thief was NOT BAPTIZED and he then ignores the fact that I have stated in the very beginning of my initial post concerning this matter and several times afterward that I cannot prove that he was baptized! And that it was not my intent to do so because it is not necessary for me to do so in order to establish that baptism is essential under the New Testament for our salvation. I was contending that no one argue truthfully that anyone can be saved like the thief on the cross without being baptized unless they can prove conclusively that he was not baptized. And thus all I have to do is show, as I have done above from the scriptures, that such is at least a possibility. Now, if Mr. Hanson wants to take up those arguments from the scriptures that I have given him above he is welcome to do so. But if he thinks he can get by with just ignoring them and demanding that we provide more while he has not digested the ones we have offered and he has made so little effort to establish his assertion which is his responsibility to prove he will be woefully mistaken.
SO, Mr. Hanson, take up my arguments from the scriptures, which establish what I asserted which was that it was possible that the thief could have been baptized. I will not repeat them for you. If you have not the courage to face them that is your problem. But do not try to deceive these intelligent people in this forum into believing that E. Lee Saffold affirmed that he could prove conclusively that the thief was baptized for I have made no such affirmation. My affirmation was that I could show that such was a possibility and I have done that in my above post using numerous passages of scripture. So, if you wish to deal with those scriptures and how I used them they are there for you to refer to and answer if you can. But all you have done by ignoring them and asking me to prove something that I never affirmed is to demonstrate that you have no ability to answer the arguments, which we have already presented. When you at least make some effort to deal with them we will happily provide you with more. But not until then! Now either you are going to discuss this issue or you are not. I wrote a post, you responded and then I wrote a response to you in return. If you want to continue the discussion then go back to where we left off and take up the arguments that I made one by one and line by line as I have done with yours. Otherwise admit that you cannot do so.
If Mr. Hanson had noticed the point, which I made and established without doubt to be true, was that no one can prove that the thief on the cross was NOT baptized. And I made it clear that neither can I prove that he WAS BAPTIZED. My point was very clear that unless Mr. Hanson can prove conclusively, which his feeble efforts are far from achieving, that the thief on the cross could never had been baptized under any circumstances whatsoever he cannot justly claim that the thief was saved without being baptized. For that argument depends entirely upon the unproven assumption that the thief had not been baptized. If Mr. Hanson is going to tell others that they can be saved without being baptized because the thief was saved without being baptized then he had better be able to prove that the thief was not baptized. All we have done is ask him to prove his false assertion, which he has failed miserably to do. And we have shown that there are possibilities, which cannot be proven true but they are possible that the thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John or by the Disciples of Christ and we gave good reasons to show that it is at least a possibility. And Mr. Hanson has done nothing to establish that it was impossibility.
And whether he was baptized does not have any bearing upon the truth that we must be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). Because in order for the argument that one can be saved just like the thief without being baptized to be true two things must be established:
1. That the thief on the cross had never been baptized in his entire life. 2. That even if he had not Christ will save anyone, under the New Testament, in the same way that he saved the thief. And Mr. Hanson has failed miserably to demonstrate with evidence that either of these two statements are the truth.
So, brethren, it is Mr. Hanson who is being “silly” to think that he can tell everyone confidently that they can be saved without being baptized just like the thief on the cross when he cannot prove that the thief on the cross was NOT BAPTIZED. It is impossible for him to prove it. Yet he would expect people to trust their eternal well fare of their eternal soul to this doctrine that he cannot prove is true. How silly indeed!
For Christ and those who love the truth,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
I re-post to comment:E. Lee, This all is a bit silly, isn't it? You are arguing from silence. Do you believe the thief was baptized? If so, what Scripture reference states or implies such?
In Christ, Barry Davis http://pastorshelper.faithweb.com
-- Barry (info@pastorshelper.com), June 21, 2001.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That statement about silliness is from Barry Davis, not Barry Hanson.
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
Brethren:Connie has correctly noted the following:
“I re-post to comment: E. Lee, This all is a bit silly, isn't it? You are arguing from silence. Do you believe the thief was baptized? If so, what Scripture reference states or implies such? In Christ, Barry Davis http://pastorshelper.faithweb.com -- Barry (info@pastorshelper.com), June 21, 2001. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That statement about silliness is from Barry Davis, not Barry Hanson.”
Connie, I thank you for the accurate and justifiable correction and offer my apologies to both “BARRYS”. This is now the second time I have made this mistake. And the second time that someone has kindly taken the time to correct me. I appreciate the correction and will endeavor to pay closer attention to WHO is writing the post to which I am responding in the future.
Thanks again Connie.
Sincerely,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
E. Lee,The point I was trying to make, is that the NT writers obviously didn't see any reason to include any information about the theif's background at all in this passage -- including information about baptism. The passage has nothing to do with baptism, one way or the other, the passage is about the grace of God and how He responds to our cries of repentance.
Do you believe that Jesus could not have saved this man without baptism?
IHS,
Barry
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
Ah-h! Such innocence.May God give you the stength and wisdom to get through what you will go through, Barry.
In His precious Name,
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
Barry:I apologize to you for twice now I have confused you with the other Barry in the forum and have thus made it appear that you have made arguments that you did not make. It was not my intent to do so.
You have said:
“E. Lee, The point I was trying to make, is that the NT writers obviously didn't see any reason to include any information about the theif's background at all in this passage -- including information about baptism.”
I did understand that point. In fact, that is my point exactly. We have no information from God concerning whether the thief was baptized at the baptism of John. If you read my initial post concerning it you will notice that we do have some inferences that he may have been so baptized but those inferences are by no means necessary ones and therefore cannot prove beyond doubt that the thief was baptized. My point was, since we DO NOT KNOW for a fact that the thief was NOT BAPTIZED, we cannot teach people that this thief is beyond all doubt an example of one being saved without baptism. For we do not know that to be the truth, now do we? And if we are going to teach the truth we must be know that what we teach is true. But we do not know, and neither does anyone else know, that this thief was not baptized. And even if it were true that the thief were saved without being baptized it would not prove that we, who live under the New Testament of Christ can be saved in the same way as the thief who lived under the Old Testament dispensation. (Heb. 9:15).
Thus, as I stated, it was not my intent to prove that the thief was baptized but only to demonstrate that we do not know whether he was or was not baptized and therefore cannot truthfully state that men today can be saved like the thief without being baptized. For no one can prove that he was not baptized. And even if they did it would not be axiomatic that we can be saved in the same way for God has made no such promise to us.
Then you say:
“ The passage has nothing to do with baptism, one way or the other,”
WE agree with you completely in this statement. And we have never used the example of the thief on the cross to teach anything “one way or the other about baptism” because it teaches us nothing whatsoever about it. WE are responding to those who are falsely teaching the doctrine of “salvation by faith only”. Who are the one’s who ever use the thief as an example of one who was, according to them, “saved without being baptized” even though as you say this scripture has nothing to say about that subject whatsoever. Now they are wrong to claim that we can be saved without being baptized by pointing to the thief on the cross as an example of it, for he is not an example of such so far as anyone can know or prove. And to teach that he was so saved when they cannot prove that he was saved without baptism is to teach that which one cannot know to be the truth. And they do this to offset the clear statements from the word of God, which teach us to be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). For no one can prove the thief was NOT BAPTIZED now can they? But there is ample evidence to prove that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and commanded of Christ for our salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
Then you say:
“ the passage is about the grace of God and how He responds to our cries of repentance.”
I do not agree with this assessment. This passage is an accurate record of what occurred at the crucifixion of Christ. And there is not a word in it that shows the thief repenting of any sins. He may have done so long before coming to the cross but he was not crying out in repentance. In fact he did not even ask Christ to save him. In stead he asked him to “remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”. How did this thief know that Christ was coming into a kingdom when he was dying on the cross? And why would he have any hope that Christ might “remember him”. Christ was dying on the cross and unless this thief had heard and understood the teaching of Christ or John about the kingdom of God he would not have known anything about it at all. Andif he had learn these thing from the preaching of John or Christ and believed it sufficiently to depend upon it in death it is possible that he may have also submitted to the baptism that was connected with their teaching. I see nothing in the passage that shows a man “crying out in repentance” at all. I see a man that man have long since repented and understood who Christ was for he called him "Lord" and he understood about the kingdom that Christ was coming into. And he had some reason to believe that he could have hope that Christ would remember him when he came into it. None of these things fit the commonly held notion of a dying man who knew nothing of Christ seeking at the last moment of his life a salvation that he knew nothing about. I just do not buy that notion and no one has demonstrated, from anything the scriptures teach about the thief, that such was indeed the case.
Then you ask:
“Do you believe that Jesus could not have saved this man without baptism?”
Now, My friend, Jesus could do anything that he chose to do then and he can do it now. He could have saved the thief on the cross with out baptism but we do not know that he did, now do we? And he could do so now, if he wanted, for he is LORD of all. But we have no evidence to prove that he will do so, now do we? This issue is not what COULD HE DO but rather WHAT DID HE DO. And the issue today is not what CAN he do but rather what has he promised that HE WILL do about these things. For we cannot let our soul’s salvation depend upon the assumptions of men about what God is able of can do. But rather our soul’s salvation depends upon what God has stated clearly in His word that he WILL do. We cannot have faith or confidence in any one else but God or anything else but the promises made in His word, now can we?
We have no evidence that Christ will save anyone without faith (John 3:16, Repentance (Acts 3:19) confession (Romans 10:10) and baptism (Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:9-40; Romans 3; 3-6; 16-18; Heb. 10:22; Titus 3:3-5; John 3:3-5; Matt. 28:19,20; Gal. 3:26,27; Eph. 5:25,26; Col. 2:11-13).
If God wants to he can save the entire would even if they do not believe in him for he is God. If God wanted to he could have saved the world without sending his Son to die on the cross. But God could not do so and at the same time be both, “Just and the justifier” of those who believe in Christ. (Romans 3:23-25), now could he. Therefore it is his will to save us through Christ and the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16). For we are told, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. …” (1 Cor. 1:18) “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:22). Therefore redemption is to be accomplished by God’s plan which he has clearly revealed to us. And though God is able to save any one any way that he wants, it is not his WILL to save us by any means but through the preaching of the gospel and obedience to it. And that is the way things are. And it is foolish and in your words “silly” for any man to contemplate that he just might, even though God has not made any such promise to us, save us by some means apart from and other than obedience to the gospel of Christ.
But God cannot lie. (Titus 2:1). And He has told us that those who do not obey the gospel will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And Jesus said, after his resurrection and after the death of the thief on the cross, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). There is no promise from God that anyone will be save who does not obey Christ in this matter. (Heb. 5:8,9). And thus we cannot go around telling people that they can be saved without baptism. Yes God is able to do it. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether he WILL do it. And we have no word from God that states that he WILL save us without our obeying the gospel, which includes repentance and baptism.
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001
Mr Saffold,“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).
The question here is what baptism was Jesus referring to. Water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore are you saying that Romans 10:9 is not valid?
-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001
Mr. Richards:You have asked two questions as follows:
“Mr Saffold, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). The question here is what baptism was Jesus referring to. Water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?”
Well, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this verse is talking about Holy Spirit baptism and you have not offered any reason why you think this might even be a possibility. But let us take a look at the facts. Mark 16:16, the verse about which you have asked this question, is in the context of the great commission given by Christ in three places. Let us read all three accounts, ok?
“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:14-16).
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19,10).
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:45-47).
Now, looking at these three accounts of the exact same great commission given by Christ we see that he was commanding the apostles to preach the gospel to “all nations” and “every creature” beginning at Jerusalem. And we also see that he commanded the apostles to baptize those whom they taught. Now, throughout the word of God the only way a MAN can baptize anyone is to immerse him in water like John did and as the disciples of Christ had been doing up until the very time that Christ died. But John said of Christ that he was the one who could baptize in the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 3:11). So, since the baptism commanded in these verses was one that the apostles, mere men, were to administer it could not be Holy Spirit baptism because the apostles had no authority or power to baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit. Only Christ could do that. And not only were the apostles to administer this baptism but they were to also teach those whom they baptized to observe all things that Christ had commanded them in relation to it. Which means that they also were to “make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19,20). Therefore, since this baptism was supposed to be administered by men it cannot be baptism in the Holy Spirit because there has never been a man alive, other than our Lord Jesus Christ, who had the authority to baptized in the Holy Spirit. And this baptism is one that the apostles and those whom they taught and baptized were commanded to do. And inasmuch as no man has ever been able to baptize someone into the Holy Spirit it follows that the baptism that they were commanded to do in Mark 16:15,16 and Matthew 28:19,20 is in fact water baptism. For that is the only option. No man can baptize another man into the Holy Spirit. And that my friend is a fact. Thus the baptism which Christ commanded in the great commission was baptism in water.
But to further see this, let us remember that when the great commission of Christ was given in Luke we are told that repentance and remission of sins would be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem. And in Acts the first Chapter we have Christ promising to baptized the apostles in the Holy Spirit “not many days hence” as follows:
“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Acts 1:4,5). And then when the Apostles were gathered together in one accord and one place they were baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4) and then Peter preached and on that day, according to the promise of Christ, he preached “repentance and the remission of sins” and when these people in his presence believed his preaching and we convinced that they’d crucified the “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). They then asked, “Men and brethren what shall we do” (Acts 2:37). And peter gave them the answer. He said, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38). And then, “with many other words did Peter exhort them saying save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Then we are told that they which “gladly received his word were baptized and there were added to them in that day three thousand souls. Now this baptism was after the baptism of the apostles in the Holy Spirit and the purpose of it was “for the remission of sins” and afterward they were promised the “gift of the Holy Spirit”. So it could not have been Holy Spirit baptism, now could it. For it was administered by the apostles and not by Christ directly. Only Christ could baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit.
And later we read of the conversion of the Samaritans in Acts chapter eight as follows:
“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12). And when the apostles at Jerusalem hear that the Samaritans had “received the word of God” they sent to them Peter and John. And I want you to notice that what is said about the Samaritans. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:14-17).
Now from the above account of the conversion of the Samaritans we see that they had clearly hear the gospel preached by Phillip, which he was doing in obedience to the command of Christ given in the great commission which we quoted from Mark 16:15,16 and Matthew 28:19,20). And we also learned that he had baptized them. Now even though we know that this baptism was not a baptism in the Holy Spirit because it was administer by a man named Phillip in the name of Christ. And not by Christ himself who was the only one that had the authority and power to baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit. We also know for other reasons that this was water baptism and not baptism in the Holy Spirit. For we are plainly told that Peter and John came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for as yet he HAD FALLEN ON NONE OF THEM ONLY THEY HAD BEEN BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Now if they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit this could not have been said of them, now could it? For if they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, as had been the apostles they would have most assuredly “received the Holy Spirit”. But we are told they had not received the Holy Spirit only they had been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”. Now this proves conclusively that the baptism of the great commission, which was to be done in the name of Jesus Christ, was not baptism in the Holy Spirit because the Samaritan had been so baptized but they had not received the Holy Spirit AT ALL. Then we see that these Samaritans received the Holy Spirit when the apostles lay their hands upon them. And not by any baptism of the Holy Spirit, which only Christ could do.
But next we must show that the baptism of the great commission, which is the baptism that was administered by Phillip among the Samaritans, which was baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, was water baptism. And all we need do to find conclusive evidence of that fact is to read a little further in Acts eight to see this same Phillip preaching this same gospel under the same commission given by Christ. And administering the same baptism which was in the name of Christ as he had administered among the Samaritans and we see that it was without any doubt or question whatsoever a baptism in WATER and not in the Holy Spirit. Let us read the account.
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.”
Now here we see the same Phillip. Preaching under the same commission of Christ given in Mark 16:16, and baptizing in the same way as he had been among the Samaritans and we clearly see that that baptism, in the name of Christ was a baptism in water.
We are told in this passage that Phillip “began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. That is all we are told that Phillip preached. Which means that he was preaching the gospel as commanded by Christ in the great commission under which he was working which is found in Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20; Luke 24:45-47. And as a result of hearing Phillip preach nothing but Jesus as soon as they came upon a certain WATER the very first thing out of the Eunuch’s mouth was, “see here is WATER what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” Now, if Phillip had been preaching under the great commission about Holy Spirit baptism instead of WATER baptism he would not have gotten this response from the eunuch, now would he? And then we see Phillip baptizing the eunuch in WATER under the great commission given by Christ in Mark 16:16 therefore the baptism of Mark 16:16 is without question a baptism in water and not a baptism in the Holy Spirit. For no man has the ability to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Only Christ can do that. But the command to baptize given in the great commission of Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20; was a baptism to be administered by men in the NAME OF CHRIST. And when we see these men administering this baptism which Christ commanded them to administer. We see that it could only be in water for that is the only way a man could ever baptize some one in the New Testament and we see that when they administered this baptism it was in fact actually done in WATER and not in the Holy Spirit.
Now, Mr. Richards, we have established our case that the baptism of the great commission was water baptism and not Holy Spirit baptism. Now, if you would like to prove to us conclusively that it was Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism we would be glad to hear your reasoning on the matter. And after you attempt to make you case that it was Holy Spirit baptism we would like to hear you show wherein you think we are in error in our above reasoning if you deem that we are in error concerning it. But do not forget that if you affirm that the baptism of Mark 16:16 is Holy Spirit baptism it is you burden to do as we have done with out affirmation above and PROVE that it is true.
And then you asked another question as follows:
“Furthermore are you saying that Romans 10:9 is not valid?”
No, Mr. Richards, I have never said that any passage in God’s eternal word is “not valid” and would never say any such thing. For we are talking here about the inspired word of God. There is no such thing as any of God’s words being “invalid”. We believe Romans 10:9 AND 10 as much as any man living on this earth. Indeed those scriptures are valid. But they do not tell the whole story concerning things essential to our salvation. For we are told, “repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out…” (Acts 3:19). And we are told that God commands all men every where to repent. (Acts 17:30) And we are told by Christ to repent (Luke 13:3). And Romans 10:9,10 says nothing about repentance. In fact Romans 10:9 talks about believing but the very next verse talks about “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. So Romans 10:9, which is the verse that you talk about is not the end of the story is it? For the very next verse added confessing with the mouth as being just as essential as believing with the heart. And the rest of the scriptures teach in numerous places that we are to be baptized. Such as : (Mark 16:16, Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3:26,27; Titus 3:3-5; Heb 10:22; Eph. 5:25,26; Acts 8:25-40; Acts 16; Acts 19:1-6). And it teaches that this baptism of the great commission is without question a baptism in WATER and Not in the Holy Spirit. Even the household of Cornelius who was baptized in the Holy Spirit was COMMANDED to be baptized in WATER. He was not excused from the baptism commanded by Christ in Mark 16:16 simply because he had been given a miraculous baptism of the Holy Spirit in order to demonstrate to the Jews that the gentiles had also been granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:15-18). We believe all of God's word Mr. Richards. Surely you do not believe that Peter's words, which he spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins adn ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) are not valid, do you?
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001
Gordon,Before you go on I would like to warn you that upon entering this forum your character, intelligence and salvation are going to be attacked. Do not think for a moment that the actual issue will be discussed apart from turning you into some type of "demon".
Some on this forum completely disregard many references posted and will push their saved by water gospel on you mercilessly.
Hope you stick around for a while!
-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001
Mr. Richards:Mr. Hanson has lied to you when he says the following:
“Gordon, Before you go on I would like to warn you that upon entering this forum your character, intelligence and salvation are going to be attacked.”
If you speak the truth, as you understand it Mr. Richards, no one will attack your character. But if you deliberately and with evil intent tell lies as Mr. Hanson has been proven to have done in this forum you will have destroyed, by your actions your own character. And we will not attack your “character” in the least. But we will expose any deliberate lies that we find being told by anyone in this forum. Now I believe that your question was sincere and I gave you an answer because you asked the questions of me directly. Mr. Hanson is unable to answer our arguments and that truly hurts his feelings and he has lied to us and I have exposed him in his lie. But no one has said anything about his “character” or his “intelligence”. WE have pointed out to him that if he has not obeyed the gospel of Christ he will not be saved from his sins and we did this in the context of a discussion of the subject of salvation. He joined that discussion freely knowing in advance the things that we taught about that matter. Those who do not obey the gospel will be punished with ever lasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thess. 1;8,9). We have not attacked his “salvation” as he claims that we have. For if he has such it cannot be affected by any attack. But we have warned him that if he has not obeyed the gospel he will be lost because we care enough for him to warn him as God has commanded us to do. And he has been teaching the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” and we have refuted it on every hand and because he cannot answer the arguments he is now not speaking with us and seeks only to do as he has done with these comments. Try to run people away before they have an opportunity to discuss the matter with us and ask their questions.
Then he warns you as follows:
“ Do not think for a moment that the actual issue will be discussed apart from turning you into some type of "demon".”
This too is a deliberate and intentional lie. Notice that he does not offer any evidence of his assertions. He merely assumes that you will believe him just because he says it is true. We have discussed the issue with him in minute detail and he has been running from that discussion because he cannot answer the arguments that have been made. Do you see any discussion of the “issues” that involve the questions that you asked above in his words in this post?
And let me ask you, in my above answer to your two questions did I attack your “character, intelligence, or salvation” at all? No, I did not, now did I? But Mr. Hanson wants to steer our discussion in that direction doesn’t he? Have you asked yourself just why he must resort to using such tactics?
Then he lies again as follows:
“Some on this forum completely disregard many references posted and will push their saved by water gospel on you mercilessly.”
WE have not ignored any references made by Mr. Hanson, and he knows it. He just terminated our discussion because we were taking notice of his every word and he could not respond to our arguments. His only option left was to run away and ignore everything that we have to say. You can read it for yourself. If you find any references that he has brought up that you would like for us to consider we will be happy to do so. He fails to inform you that he basically terminated our discussion before we were finished, doesn’t he?
He also cannot show you one single place where I have attacked his intelligence and the only thing I have done that has any influence concerning his character is that I have exposed his lies which he has told. But I did so by giving irrefutable evidence from his own words that he had lied. He basically attacked his own character. There is nothing I could do to prevent that but I did expose his efforts to tell that which was not the truth. If you do not lie you will not suffer the same treatment. I suspect you are a man of character that would not tell a lie deliberately. We all err at times and speak that which we think is true and later find that it was not. But this is not what Mr. Hanson has been convicted of doing in this forum. He has deliberately lied and we have exposed him for it. You can read the archives for yourself and see the evidence. If you wish for us to repeat it here we will do so.
Then he says we will push our “water gospel” on you mercilessly. He is mistaken, my friend. WE will not push anything on you at all. Christianity is voluntary. You will be asked to come to Christ of your own free will in obedience to the gospel of Christ which includes being obedient to Christ command to be baptized in the very verse that you asked your questions about. (Mark 16:16). And the purpose of not just baptism by faith, repentance and baptism is for the remission of sins. For those who believed the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost were told by Peter, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But that is not a “water gospel” it is simply the gospel of Christ which requires that we obey the command of Christ to be baptized in water as I have demonstrated in my arguments presented to you in my response. Now you can decide for yourself who discusses the issue here. I answered your questions from the scriptures and spoke of only the issues that you raised in your questions. And Mr. Hanson, on the other hand, cannot argue with the answers and an argument that I have presented to you in my answering your questions so he comes in here. But does he talk about the “issues” that you raised? No! Does he say anything about the arguments that I presented for your consideration? No. What does he do other than attack the character of those who are responding to your questions? You should be able to see from this alone that Mr. Hanson is not one who speaks the truth justly and objectively.
But, if you truly wish to discuss these issues then respond to my answer and you and I will discuss it. And if you do not follow Mr. Hanson’s example of deliberate deceptions and attacks on character we will not return fire so to speak. But if you enter that area we are able to defend the truth even there and Mr. Hanson is right about one thing. When we are dealing with that which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ we are indeed MECILESS! So if your intent is to teach doctrines that are contrary to the truth using tactics that are designed to be deliberate efforts to deceive our readers you will not find us being kind or merciful. But the choice is up to you entirely. You can be like Mr. Hanson or you can be sincerely seeking an objective discussion of these matters. And the difference will determine how I treat you in this forum, at least.
And it is quite humorous that after telling these lies about how “awful” you can expect to be treated by us in this forum he ends by hoping that you will “stick around for a while”! It is obvious that the truth is that he does not want you to enter this discussion at all much less “stick around for a while. But we, on the other hand do hope that you will stick around for a while and that you will not run from the issues as Mr. Hanson has clearly done in this forum.
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001
Mr. Gordon Richards,If you have on your asbestos underwear and are armed with the Sword of the Spirit, and all of the rest of God's armor, you'll do well.
-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001
Gordon,As you can well see from the response garnered by my simple message to you how unbalanced certain individuals are in their desperate attempt to salvage credibility. I was a first time visitor here many months ago and wondered onto this forum thinking it was Christian, since then I have discovered quite the opposite. Despite the continued falsehoods written about me I refer you to a number of threads on this forum, if you have the time, to gain for yourself a clear picture of the truth of this forum, how I am personally attacked, my character, my intelligence and my relationship with Jesus.
Look up the threads, "Was the repentant Thief really told he'd be in heaven with Jesus?"
One very interesting note, the initial thread is no longer available, it was in there many of Mr. Saffolds true colors shown brightly.
Another thread, "Revival of an old unfinished discussion Concerning baptism"
Another thread, "Faith"
Another thread, "Do you believe these verses"
Furthermore, if you go back to archived threads you will find messages of mine that have gone unanswered for 17 plus months….
"1 Peter 3 and Baptism"
"Jesus and baptism"
and
"What is the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10"
You can then decide for yourself the veracity of my statements.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001
Barry, Connie, E.Lee Saffold,After I made my earlier post I have read many more posts on this forum and have made the decision not to get involved any further. My reasons are based on the following: Upon looking through the various posts I can see that Christian love is seldom displayed here. I know that we are all sinners and we all make mistakes, however when Christians (or those that profess to be Christians) abuse each other in the manner displayed here I want no part of it.
A very good book that I would like to recommend to all of you is 'The Salvation of the Soul' by Watchman Nee. It might help clear up some of the issues on this thread.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001
Brethren and Mr. Richards:Mr. `Hanson has said:
“Despite the continued falsehoods written about me I refer you to a number of threads on this forum, if you have the time, to gain for yourself a clear picture of the truth of this forum, how I am personally attacked, my character, my intelligence and my relationship with Jesus.”
Mr. Hanson has not been personally attacked and he, by telling lies has defamed his own character all we have done is to expose his lie. And we have said nothing whatsoever about his intelligence. And we have only doubted that his false doctrine of salvation by “faith only” is the basis of a true relationship to Jesus Christ without saying anything directly about Mr. Hanson’s relationship with Christ. WE have denied Mr. Hanson’s unsubstantiated claims of experiencing some direct operation of the Holy Spirit. And this is a right thing to do and doing such is not in the least attacking him personally but simply demanding proof of his claims which we believe to be false because he has yet to offer any evidence to cause us to have reason to believe them.
And we do indeed encourage you to read the threads, which Mr. Hanson has referred you to read. And if you find any place where we have personally attacked him and can prove that we have done so we ask that you come back to this thread. And give evidence of it and we will examine it and if we have indeed personally attacked him we will apologize. But a mere accusation without evidence is not sufficient to obtain an apology from us. If you can find any place where I have said anything derogatory about his intelligence please let me know. And if you read where Mr. Hanson spoke that which is not true we hope that you will be concerned enough to join with us in calling for his repentance for having done such.
WE also recommend that you read the threads that Mr. Hanson did not suggest that you read. Such as:
“An old discussion on baptism (continued)”
“Justification by belief”
And you will certainly be able, as are all of our readers to form your own judgement of these matters.
In regard to Mr. Hanson’s deliberate lie we will now paste the following evidence from the thread entitled “justification by belief”, which he did not suggest that you read. It contains irrefutable evidence that he has not been truthful concerning the fact that he has taught that we are saved by “believing only” or in other words “faith only” and then denied having ever said any such. We now quote our previous discussion of this matter from that thread into this thread for you to read. It is now the sixth time that we have posted this and asked Mr. Hanson to explain it to us but he has refused to even attempt to do so. We now quote from that thread as follows:
“No one has “personally” attacked Mr. Hanson but we have indeed viciously attacked his arguments and clearly exposed his deliberate lies. Such as the one he tells above. He says that he has always stated that it was by “grace through faith” as if he had never stated that it was by belief or faith alone or only. So again we will post his exact words where he claimed that Jesus taught that “believing only” saves us.
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 because of this he is now denying that he ever said we are saved by “FAITH ONLY” or “Believing alone”. 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 simple fact. Look at his words, which follow and read them for yourself to know the truth about what Mr. Hanson has said:
He begins by saying that he never said “faith alone” as follows:
““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.” Therefore, not only did he say, “Jesus has mentioned on several occasions that one is SAVED BY BELIEVING ALONE”. But he referenced seven passages of scripture which he claims Jesus stated we are saved by “BELIVING ALONE”. And now that we have pointed to the very clear truth, that anyone reading those passages can see, that Jesus does not say in any of them we are saved by “BELIEVING ALONE”. Mr. Hanson now denies that he had ever said such a thing.
Therefore, it is not that anyone in this forum has ever “misrepresented” or “personally attacked” Mr. Hanson. It is a simple matter that Mr. Hanson has said something that proved to be completely in error when one examines the passages that he quoted. Therefore, if he honestly believes that Jesus said in any of them that we are saved by “BELIVING ONLY”. Then he accurately represented what he believed to be true and having found that he was in error the responsible thing to do is admit the error and correct his teaching about those verses. But if he did not believe that Jesus taught we are “saved by believing ALONE” in those passages. Then he has clearly MISREPRESENTED HIMSELF in his statement which we quoted above that Jesus mentioned on several occasions that we are saved by BELIVING ONLY” when in fact he does not really believe such. And if that is the case he should not accuse us of the misrepresentation when it was he that misrepresented what he claimed to believe. He should instead state emphatically that he mistakenly misrepresented his own belief when he made that statement and admit to all that it is not only not what he believes but it is also NOT THE TRUTH.
On the other hand, if he does in fact believe that we are saved by faith only and he has tried to establish that belief by contending that Jesus “on several occasions stated that we are saved by “believing only”. Then he should repent for having lied to us when he claimed in the above statement from him that, “ (notice that I have never said "faith alone" as it has been falsely stated)”.
Because no one has falsely stated that he said we are saved by “believing alone” for his own words which we have accurately quoted and given their exact location so that all can go and read them. Show how that he did in fact say just such a thing that he claims to have NEVER said.
So we ask him, brethren, which is it? Did you state what you believed at the time to be the truth? And when it was pointed out that the passages, which you claimed to teach, we are “saved by believing only” did not say any such thing you changed your mind without admitting your error to everyone in the forum?
Or did you simply, by some mistake, misrepresent yourself and what you believed when you said “believing only” saves us? If so why do you blame those of us who pointed to your error for your own mistaken misrepresentation of what you believe?
Or do you actually believe that we are saved by “believing only” and therefore you have lied when you claimed, “(notice that I have never said "faith alone" as it has been falsely stated)”?
Now, do tell us Mr. Hanson, which is the actual truth in this case? If you believed what you said and have now changed you mind you owe it to our readers to honestly admit such. If you misrepresented your actual beliefs then you owe it to those of us that you have accused of misrepresenting you in the matter an apology for the false accusation. If you still believe that we are saved “by believing only” as you initially stated. Then you owe our readers an apology for lying to them when you categorically denied having said we are saved by faith alone when you said, “ (notice that I have never said "faith alone" as it has been falsely stated)”. But most importantly you need to repent before God for telling a deliberate lie. We wait for you to tell us just which one of the only three logical options you have above is the truth in this matter. You do not have to tell me because you have decided to not address me any more. But you owe it to our readers. Whether you have the integrity to deal with this matter is entirely up to you, naturally. But I again bring it to the attention of our readers and they will wait to see if you are a man of integrity.
Now we say the above things because you have come into this thread and again repeated the same lie, which you had stated in the thread wherein we quoted your words as follows:
“This is not "faith only" (as some continue to be deluded) but grace through faith. It has also been pointed out that it was Jesus Himself that stated on numerous occasions the necessity of faith independent of any other qualification, unfortunately, this simple observation cannot be grasped by some.” Now brethren and friends, notice that 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 before twice denied that he ever said that we are saved by “faith only”. And his above statement makes the third time he has told this deliberate lie. Nevertheless the above quotation of his exact words prove conclusively without doubt the fact that he has lied about that matter. Look at his words, which follow:
““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)”
And read again his words, which we have quoted him as saying and given the reference thread with the date included of where he said it, and the context in which it was said and you will see the truth about Mr. Hanson’s effort to deceive you:
““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.”
So, the evidence of this has now been posted six times for all to read. And Mr. Hanson has yet to even attempt to answer or explain to us how he could argue that Jesus taught in numerous places that we are saved by “believing alone” and maintain that he was not teaching that one can be saved by “believing alone or by “faith only”. The reason is that there is no way in which he can answer. For we have quoted his exact words and the exact date when he said them. And they contain the very words that he now denies that he EVER said. But he did say them and it is obvious to any person who can read that he said them and then lied about having never said them.
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001
It seems to me, after watching this argument back and forth for umpteen weeks, that both sides are in agreement but completely unawares, and arguing largely on semantics.On the one side we have Barry et.al., who argue with Paul that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works, not by anything we can do (Ephesians 2:8-9). And from God's point of view, this is true. Yet I am sure that neither Barry nor anyone else holding his view would say that faith alone, faith that does not result in obedience, saves anyone.
On the other side we have Lee et.al., who argue with James that faith without works is dead. And from man's point of view this is also true. For it is our good deeds which display to our fellow man the genuineness of our faith. As Paul also says in Ephesians 2:10, we are saved in order to do good works. And I'm sure that neither Lee or anyone in his camp would say that any works we can do can add one whit to the salvation that God freely offers by his grace, for all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001
John,I believe I agree with your assessment. As I have always maintained that we are saved to do good works. Good works such as water baptism are indicative of saving faith. James says that faith without works is dead, therefore, once we are born again we will perform good works. This is the difference between our faith and that of the devils, the devils will never do good works, and even if they did, it is the Grace of God that saves and God is not extending His Grace to them. They are forever damned despite their faith that God exists.
John, what I find impossible is that I have been demonized as a "false teacher", "liar" etc… my redemption that Christ purchased for me - the most precious thing in my life - is trivialized. When I have "cornered" Mr. Saffold in his false teaching of salvation by water his reply is basically, this is not what I say, this is what the Bible says. Now we see that when I simply point out in the Scriptures what Jesus has said, Mr. Saffold cannot stomach his own reasoning. He continually posts the same message over and over defaming my character as that of a "liar" when I have simply pointed out in the Scriptures that, indeed, on many occasions, Jesus stated that upon believing we have everlasting life. I point out that Jesus makes these statements independent of any reference whatsoever to good works. Thus, we see that Jesus Himself did not teach we were saved by water but rather through faith. I distinctly point out, this is what Jesus taught and simply reiterate what the Scriptures say. Obviously, Mr. Saffold is compelled to demonize me at every turn for pointing this out, yet if he would apply the same standards to his own false teaching he would find that he himself embodies all he has called me.
We are not saved by water baptism, or good works, or obedience or repentance or any other effort man wishes to place ahead of Christ's sacrifice. God's grace is sufficient, I wholly lean on His completed work realizing that my effort before I believe is unprofitable (Rom.3:12) and that once I simply believe, I am born of God (1 John 5:1). This is the good news! Don't work to clean yourself up before you come to Jesus - simply come to Jesus and He will help you to clean yourself up.
Luke 8:50
"But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole."
Here we see that James is not the only reference in Scripture where it states "faith only" or "believe only". Even still we do not teach we are redeemed by "faith only" as I have always taught the simple "formula"….
Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works
This is a far cry from the lies continually espoused on this forum, that I teach…
Faith = Redemption.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001
Brethren and Friends:Mr. Hanson says:
“John, I believe I agree with your assessment. As I have always maintained that we are saved to do good works. Good works such as water baptism are indicative of saving faith. James says that faith without works is dead, therefore, once we are born again we will perform good works.”
However, what James, as well as the rest of the word of God, does not say is “once we are born again we will perform good works”. And he does say that faith alone is dead and he is talking about justification. Hear him, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2:24). And his original question was, “What doeth it prophet my brethren if a man say he has faith and have not works, can faith save him?” (James 2:14). Hence he is talking about salvation. And when he said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24) He was giving the final answer to that question. Therefore James is plainly teaching that faith cannot save a man if it is ALONE. Because a faith that is alone is as dead as a body without the spirit. “For as the body without the spirit is dead even so faith if it hath not works is dead being ALONE”. (James 2:26). So, there is no question whatsoever that men are not saved by FAITH ONLY. Let us not forget the warning and accusation of Christ against those who do not hear God’s word. “He that is of God hearth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:47). Those who refuse to hear the inspired word of God taught by James do not hear them because they are not of God.
Then he says:
“This is the difference between our faith and that of the devils, the devils will never do good works, and even if they did, it is the Grace of God that saves and God is not extending His Grace to them. They are forever damned despite their faith that God exists.”
The only similarity that James points to is the fact that they believe only and nothing else. The point that James is making is that faith without works is dead being alone hence it cannot save a man. And the devils were an example of how one can have faith and not obey God, contrary to Mr. Hanson’s false doctrine that “if one actually has faith he WILL obey”. But James shows that the devils actually believe and they therefore have faith but they have no intent to obey God. And we have shown the scriptural examples of those that believed only and were not saved because they would not confess Christ. (John 12:42,43).
Then Mr. Hanson is crying that he has been sorely mistreated as follows:
“John, what I find impossible is that I have been demonized as a "false teacher", "liar" etc… my redemption that Christ purchased for me - the most precious thing in my life - is trivialized.”
No one has “demonized” Mr. Hanson and he cannot show one single thing that we have said that was in anyway designed to “demonize” him. He has in fact lied to us and we have pointed it out to him now six times giving him every opportunity to explain to our readers his clear and obvious self- contradiction. And he has thus far avoided any attempt to show us how his self -contradictory statements concerning the fact that he originally attempted to teach we are saved by “believing only” and then his later denial of having ever done such can be harmonized.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ When I have "cornered" Mr. Saffold in his false teaching of salvation by water his reply is basically, this is not what I say, this is what the Bible says.”
Now, Mr. Hanson is one of the few men that I know of that could find a “corner” in a round room if his he needed one to delude himself into believing that such was important to the defense of his false doctrines. There are no corners that anyone has been placed in during this discussion unless it is this terrible unanswerable “corner” of pathetic self-contradiction that Mr. Hanson appears to have gotten himself into from which he seems to be unable to extradite himself. So he imagines that there are there is also a corner for Mr. Saffold and that he has managed to put him into it. But if this is the case he does not tell us, as I have done, just where the “corner” is and point to exactly how he has place Mr. Saffold into it and he does not tell our readers just how it is that Mr. Saffold is in any corner. It is only his imagination playing tricks on him again. He could not prove that Mr. Saffold is in any “corner” if his life depended upon it. But evidence has never been important to him but his imagination is essential to his own well being. For he is in a “corner” and in order to deal with it he seems to have a need to imagine that Mr. Saffold is in a corner also. Well, we do not want him to suffer we only want him to admit that openly that he agrees that we are NOT SAVED BY FAITH ONLY. And if he is not attempting to teach such and if he does not believe such he should be able to come back in here and in bold terms stand with us against this false doctrine that man can be saved by FAITH ONLY. He should be able to say, without choking on his words, “MAN IS NOT SAVED BY FAITH ONLY”. WE shall wait to see if he will admit that such is the truth. And if he does such we will be happy to know that he now understands and accepts that truth and will not bother him about what he originally taught any longer. But if he continues to teach that we are saved by FAITH ONLY we will continue to show that he lied when he claimed that he never taught any such thing. So, we wait to see just what he will do.
Now anyone can see that it is not “Mr. Saffold” that has been “cornered” in this discussion. Mr. Saffold has spent much time in answering the things said by Mr. `Hanson and Mr. Hanson has been asked now six times to explain his self-contradiction we have posted above and because he feels “cornered” He just ignores it. And continues to ignore it thinking that it will go away and we will one day forget it and he can just slide out the back door unnoticed.
Indeed, it is true that we are teaching the truth of God’s word and not our own opinions and doctrines. So it would be natural for us to point out that what we are teaching is in harmony with the doctrine of Christ and not some false doctrine that is opposed to the doctrine of Christ such as Mr. Hanson’s false doctrine of “salvation by faith only”.
Then he says:
“ Now we see that when I simply point out in the Scriptures what Jesus has said, Mr. Saffold cannot stomach his own reasoning.”
I know that Mr. Hanson would like very much to leave the impression that he has been reasoning just like Mr. Saffold. But it is obvious to our readers that he is not doing any such thing. When Mr. Saffold quotes a scripture he makes sure that it says exactly what he claims that it says and not what he would like for it to say. Mr. Hanson quoted Jesus when he taught that we are saved by faith or believing and claimed that Jesus taught that “believing alone” saves us. And we pointed out that not a single one of the passages that he quoted had the word “alone” in it and therefore Jesus did not in any place teach we are saved by “believing only as he claimed. And then Mr. Hanson noticed his mistake and changed the wording the next time he said those words and he left out the words “believing alone”. And we took note of this drastic change, which indicated that he saw the truth of the matter. And from that time until now he has been denying that he ever said that Jesus taught “believing alone” saves us. But we found his words wherein he did say those things and have shown it to all now six times and he just ignores it and continues to deny that he ever said it. But brethren and friends, the truth is there for all of you to see, isn’t it.
Now the truth is that he claimed that Jesus said that we are saved by “believing alone” and we pointed out that Jesus did not say believing “alone” in any of the verses that he quoted. And we even quoted the verses verbatim so that others could read it for themselves. There is not a single passage in the entire word of God that teaches we are saved or justified by faith only, not a single one. And Mr. Hanson is frustrated by the fact that he cannot find one. And it is not our reasoning that we cannot stomach but his deliberate lying. For he first taught we saved by “believing alone” and now claims that he never said any such thing. Now that is a deliberate lie as we have shown in our last post and He knows it and has failed to show how that he can reconcile his self- contradiction. He has not even attempted to do so.
Then he says:
“He continually posts the same message over and over defaming my character as that of a "liar" when I have simply pointed out in the Scriptures that, indeed, on many occasions, Jesus stated that upon believing we have everlasting life.”
WE will continue to post that FACT until he makes some attempt, however feeble, to face it and answer it. WE have simply stated facts that are indications of his self-contradiction, which proves beyond all shadow of doubt that he has lied to us. And by lying to us he has defamed his own character. All we have done is to expose the lie. We will do it anytime that someone does not tell the truth in this forum and we see it, recognize it, and have time and opportunity to expose it. And that is just the way it is going to be. And all the tears and whining over the exposure of a lie will not make me think that I have been “defaming” the liar’s character. A man who tells that which he knows to be untrue has a lack of character and runs the risk by telling a lie in a public forum of having the lie exposed and this flaw in his character exposed with the lie. But the person exposing the lie has no ambition to “defame” such a person but rather to get at the truth of a matter. The one who lies is responsible for any affect that the exposure of his lie might have upon his character. It was his choice to tell us that, which was not true and now that we recognize it and have exposed it he must bear the responsibility for any impact or effect that such lying might have upon his character.
Now notice this deliberate attempt to deceive yet again, my brethren. Notice that he says that he “simply pointed out in the scriptures that, indeed on many occasions, Jesus stated that upon believing we have ever lasting life.” There is no passage that says “UPON BELIVING” we have everlasting life but this is not what Mr. Hanson actually said. What he actually said was:
“Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone.”
And then here in this post he deliberately leaves out the word, “alone” which was in his original statement which he had made before which he continues to maintain that he never said. But we have quoted his words and given the date and the thread where everyone can go to read it for themselves in it’s context to see that he was lying when he said those things. And he is now lying again when he deliberately leaves out the word “alone” in his restatement of what was in his original statement. But he has deliberately left out of his restatement of it the word “ALONE” so that it would appear innocent. When he knows that his original word stated “believing ALONE” and he continues in the face of the facts to lie and tell you that he NEVER SAID IT as follows:
“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)”
He did say “believing alone” and he is lying when he says that he never said it. We have now proven it but he will continue to deliberately lie. But what else could we expect from those who teach contrary to the truth of God’s word?
Then he says:
“ I point out that Jesus makes these statements independent of any reference whatsoever to good works.”
The issue here is whether Christ is talking about a living faith or a dead faith. “Faith if it hath not works is DEAD”. Now Jesus taught that we are saved by faith but he never said we are saved by “believing alone” as Mr. Hanson stated. For if faith when it is alone it is DEAD. Then no man can be saved by faith ALONE as Mr. Hanson has definitely tried to teach us. “Faith without works is dead being alone” (James 2:17). “For as the body without the spirit is dead even so faith if it hath not works is dead being ALONE” (James 2:26). And for that very reason Christ did not say we are saved by “believing alone” as Mr. Hanson falsely accuses him of having said.
Then he says:
“ Thus, we see that Jesus Himself did not teach we were saved by water but rather through faith.”
Jesus does not teach we are saved by “Faith only” or “believing alone” But he does teach that baptism is joined with and is equally related to salvation as is belief. For he says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) And through Peter Christ teaches “the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21). And through Peter again Christ taught, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (unto or in order to obtain) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And through Paul Christ taught that “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10). Thus baptism ALONE does not save us but when combined with faith (Mark 16:16) repentance (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 17:30) and confession (Romans 10:10) it is the very time and place WHEN our state is changed from lost, unforgiven sinners to saved and forgiven saints (Col. 2:11-13).
Then he says:
“ I distinctly point out, this is what Jesus taught and simply reiterate what the Scriptures say.”
No, again Mr. Hanson lies. Mr. Hanson said that Jesus said “numerous times that we are saved by believing ALONE’ and even he now admits that Jesus did not say any such thing and therefore he denies that he ever said that Jesus did say such a thing! It is obvious that Mr. Hanson did not do in his original statement what he claims to have done in his above statement. And this is just another deliberate lie! He points out in his original statement that Christ taught that we are saved by “believing ALONE” and then quotes scriptures where Christ taught we are saved by faith but where he never said that we are saved by believing “ALONE”. And he falsely claims to have simply “reiterated” what the scriptures teach when in truth he attempts to pervert what the scriptures teach by forcing or adding the word “ALONE” into the text for it is not there. And then when we point to how egregious that error was he simply denies that he ever made the error by saying, “Mr. Saffold, Jesus on numerous occasions said we are saved by “BELIEVING ONLY”. But he did say it as we have show from our quotations of his exact words. And we have given the reference where all can go to read it for themselves.
Then he again says:
“Obviously, Mr. Saffold is compelled to demonize me at every turn for pointing this out, yet if he would apply the same standards to his own false teaching he would find that he himself embodies all he has called me.”
Now again we deny that we have made any efforts to “demonize” Mr. Hanson simply because we have pointed out his self contradiction and proven by using it as evidence that he has lied to us. Now if that is not the case he has had the opportunity to correct us by explaining his self-contradiction. But he has failed to even try to correct us on that score. All he does is complain that we are “demonizing him”. When what we have done is prove that he has lied.
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001
Brethren and Friends:WE now continue our response to Mr. Hanson's post as follows:
Mr. Hanson says:
“We are not saved by water baptism”
We are certainly not saved by baptism alone (the baptism of the great commission was always in water and nothing else.) (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15:16) and no one has ever claimed such. But Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16) and this baptism, as we have proven in another post, was a baptism in water. And Peter said, “wherein few that is eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:20,21). And sins no one will be saved until their sins are forgiven. And we are told, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Then it follows that baptism is involved in the obtaining the remission of sins so that we can be saved from them.
Then he says:
“or obedience”
Well Christ said through the Hebrew writer, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Hebrews 5:8,9). Now that is pretty clear that Christ saves those who OBEY him and Mr. Hanson says that obedience has nothing to do with out salvation. Then we are told, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father in heaven.” (Matt 7:21) Those who “DO THE WILL OF GOD will enter the kingdom of heaven. And he asked the question, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things, which I say?” (Luke 6:46). And we are also told that all who do not obey the gospel will be punished with every lasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And that those who obey the gospel will have a very different end than those who do not obey the gospel. (1 Peter 4:16-18).
Then he says that we can even be saved without repenting of our sins. As follows:
“or repentance”
But we are told by Peter again, “repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins might be blotted out…” (Acts 3:19). And Christ said, “I tell you nay but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3) And he repeated the same words again in verse 5 of the same chapter. And we are told that God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). But Mr. Hanson says we are save before and without repenting of our sins and being forgiven of them. But this overlooks the simple fact that it is our sins Christ died to save us from. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matt. 1:21).
or any other effort man wishes to place ahead of Christ's sacrifice”
No one is placing anything ahead of Christ sacrifice. The Christ who sacrificed his life for us required all of these things. And it is Mr. Hanson that is placing his own false doctrine ahead of the will of Christ who was sacrificed for us. In fact were it not for his sacrifice there would be nothing that we could do to appease the wrath of God for our sins. But when the Christ who offered himself for us requires that we yield to his lordship we must do it.
Then he said:
“ God's grace is sufficient”
No one has doubts that God’s grace is sufficient but according to Paul we are “saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. Therefore God’s grace is not sufficient alone to save without man’s faith in God. For we are indeed saved by God’s Grace through FAITH. (Eph. 2:8). And we are not saved by “FAITH ONLY” as Mr. Hanson falsely teaches. But rather by a living faith that includes or leads us to obey Christ (Heb. 5:8,9).
Then he simply repeats his argument that we have already answered in our previous post and he doe not even begin to respond to what we said about it as follows:
“ I wholly lean on His completed work realizing that my effort before I believe is unprofitable (Rom.3:12) and that once I simply believe, I am born of God (1 John 5:1).”
We answer this in our last post and he has not bothered to reply. It may be that he feels “cornered” again. And the scriptures do not teach anywhere that once we “simply believe” (which is a euphemism for ‘salvation by faith only’ which Mr. Hanson has claimed that he is not teaching) we are born of God. Not one passage of scripture in the Bible says “one we simply believe we are born of God and it is certain that Romans 3:12 and 1 John 5:1 do not teach such nonsense.
Then he says:
“ This is the good news!”
No, Friends this is the false doctrine taught by Mr. Hanson and there is no good news in it because it is contrary to the gospel of Christ.
Then he says:
“ Don't work to clean yourself up before you come to Jesus - simply come to Jesus and He will help you to clean yourself up.”
That is not what the Bible says. It says, repent ye therefore and be converted THAT YOUR SINS MIGHT BE BLOTTED OUT.” (Acts 3:19). Indeed we cannot clean our selves but we must “come to Christ in his prescribed way before he will clean us. And remember that Ananias told Saul of Tarsus, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS CALLING ON THE NAME OF TH LORD.” (Acts 22:16) And we are told that our sins are removed when we are buried with Christ in baptism (Col. 2:11-13). And we are commanded “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) And “with many other words did he testify and exhort saying, “save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). SO this nonsense that there is nothing whatsoever that we must do ourselves in order to be save is just a lie, isn’t it?
Then he thinks he has FINALLY found a verse that teaches “SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY”! And he is so excited that he just cannot wait to try it out and see how it works. But remember now that Mr. Hanson has told us, ““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)” . So, first he says we are saved by “faith alone”. And then he sees that that is in direct conflict with the words of James which says “by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24). So he returns to tell us the LIE that he never said “faith alone”. And now he has found what he thinks is teaching SALVATION BY FAITH ONY and he comes back in here to teach faith alone but in doing so he abandons his argument that h has never taught “faith alone” as he is now trying to teach with his following words:
He quotes Luke 8:50 in correctly as follows:
“Luke 8:50 "But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole."
Then he says:
“Here we see that James is not the only reference in Scripture where it states "faith only" or "believe only".
Well this is nonsense. James is the only passage of scripture that combines the word’s faith and only in relation to Justification and it says we are justified by works and not by faith only. And the passage that our friend has quoted is not talking about salvation or justification but rather the healing of the physical body of the daughter of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue. It is not even talking about redemption in the least. And therefore we have no idea why Mr. Hanson wishes to use it as an argument for SALVATION or JUSTIFICATION by “faith only”, which he adamantly claims he has never taught but we have accurately and justly proved that he has taught. And now we see him trying to teach it yet again.
Now I suggest that every one take the time to read the entire context of this verse and the events that occurred on this occasion and they will be able to easily see the truth that these verses are not even talking about justification or eternal salvation at all. But they are instead a part of the narrative of the raising of Jarius’ daughter. Read it for yourself from Luke 8:41-56 and you will see how absurd Mr. Hanson’s attempt to lend support from these verses for the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” really is.
And notice also as you read that the person is not told by Christ to have nothing but a dead and lifeless faith that is alone. In fact this ruler was not one who had not DONE anything except believe. For he had by faith already taken action to come to Christ and fall down before him and plead for Christ to heal his daughter who was sick of a fever.
And the Jarius is interrupted and told not to trouble the master because his daughter was dead. And it was then that Christ told the man who said those words “fear not but believe only and she shale be made whole”. Christ was clearly telling this man to not mix doubt and fear with his faith. He is not telling him to not obey or pray or do nothing. He was not telling him to have faith without any works so that he could be saved or justified and to imply such is just egregiously ignorant. He is instead telling the man from Jairus’ house who came to inform him that his daughter was dead and had suggested that it was now futile and to urge him to “trouble not the master” to not mix such doubts with faith but to have belief without doubt. He was telling this man not to inject doubt into a situation where complete faith without any doubt was needed. He was telling him to not allow doubt to creep in but to have faith without any doubts or fear mixed with it. To believe only in this context actually meant the same as “fear not”. It was the antithesis of “fear not”. And any honest person can see this. But we can see that Mr. Hanson is not honest in trying to make this an example or an argument for salvation by faith only when he knows full well that salvation from sin is not the issue under consideration but rather the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead.
If one reads the entire account he can see that this is the truth of the matter. And He will also be able to see that Jairus DID much. His faith in Christ led him to come seeking Christ and he FELL AT THE MASTER’S feet. I can just hear someone now saying there goes that old “falling at the feet salvation” doesn’t he know that he must have faith only and not even go to Christ but just sit at home and wait for the salvation that comes by faith only! Hogwash! This man’s faith caused him to get up from his house, walk into town and to fall down at the master’s feet. Far more “WORK” than Mr. Hanson, and those who believe in salvation by faith only would like to see him do, isn’t it?
Thus before this man arrived Jairus demonstrated profusely his faith in Christ. He was not operating on the principle of “faith only” but faith was wrought with his works and works had made his faith complete, perfect, alive and effectual. It was not until a man from Jairus’ house came to tell him that it was too late and not to trouble the master because she was dead that Christ saw the need to tell them not to have any doubt. And the way he said it was in the negative and positive way. He said, “FEAR NOT” and in opposition to fear he said “BELIEVE ONLY” meaning, do not mix faith with fear and doubt. But have nothing but faith. He was not saying “do nothing but have some mental assent to the truth”. For they had already DONE something by faith. They had already got up, come to town, searched and found the master and fell at his feet asking for help. Their faith in Christ was very much alive until one came with fear and doubt thinking that it was now useless to trouble the master for she was dead. Therefore Christ said, fear not only believe. Which the context makes abundantly clear that he was telling them not to mix faith and fear, doubt and despair together. For the one drives out the other. They are not compatible to with one another. They are direct opposites of one another. You cannot have a little of one and a little of the other. You must have faith without any fear. Now that is the truth of this matter and Mr. Hanson knows it. He just wants to deceive and he will stoop to the use of any argument even when he knows in advance that it is not the truth.
Then, even though he had attempted to leave every one with the impression that this verse gave some support to the false doctrine of salvation by faith only, he knew that such was not the truth and he says:
“Even still we do not teach we are redeemed by "faith only" as I have always taught the simple "formula"…. Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works This is a far cry from the lies continually espoused on this forum, that I teach… Faith = Redemption. ”
Well if he knew that these verses do not teach salvation by faith only. He still tried to leave you with the impression that it did, now didn’t he? And he again lies and says that he does not teach we are redeemed by “faith only” when in truth he has taught such as we have now repeatedly demonstrated.
But let us look at his so-called “formula” as follows:
“Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works”
Now brethren and friends let us take a look at the things which are said to be related to our salvation that Mr. Hanson leaves out. He leaves out the blood of Christ for it surely redeems us. And he leaves out repentance of sins. He leaves out confession of Christ which is unto salvation. He leaves out baptism the very point when and the time WHEN God forgives all of our past sins and thereby redeems us from them. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15,16).
But he claims that his formula is a far Cry from salvation by faith only. But it really isn’t. God provides the grace and man responds to his grace in faith. But Mr. Hanson has nothing else required of MAN but faith. And that is without doubt the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. The idea that God ONLY requires faith for us to be redeemed. He does not, according to Mr. Hanson require repentance. But according to God repentance is required of us to be saved by grace. (Acts 3;19; 17:30; 2:38). And God requires that we confess Christ (Romand 10:10) but Mr. Hanson does not. And God requires obedience to Christ in order to salvation (Heb. 5:8,9) but Mr. Hanson says nothing about obedience having anything to do with salvation. And God requires baptism as we have now shown constantly without anyone refute=ing this truth form the following verses numerous times. (Mark 16:16; John 3;3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:9-40; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3;26,27; Col. 2:11-13; Romans 6;3-6, 16-18 Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22).
Then he says:
“This is a far cry from the lies continually espoused on this forum, that I teach… Faith = Redemption.”
Brethren and friends, you can judge for yourself if anyone has lied about Mr. Hanson or if he has lied to us himself. I have given the evidence of his lie and the reasons why I accuse him of it. But he has not even tried to explain his lie. WE have quoted it in this series of post. The truth is clear that Mr. Hanson has deliberately lied to us in this forum and he cannot account for his deliberate attempts to decieve in any way and therefore has nmade no effort to do so. All he does is cry that we are lying about him without proofing by any quotations of our words at all wherein we have lied about him. We have shown where he taught the false doctrine of salvation by faith only and he has not responded to those words at all.
Brethren and friends, watch and be sober for you can certainly see that there are many false prophets in this world seeking to lead you away from the simple truth of God’s word. And Mr. Hanson has shown us several prime examples of the deceptive tactic they often use. SO be sober and vigilant.
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001
Mr. Saffold:Above you wrote, "If one reads the entire account he can see that this is the truth of the matter. And He will also be able to see that Jairus DID much. His faith in Christ led him to come seeking Christ and he FELL AT THE MASTER’S feet. I can just hear someone now saying there goes that old “falling at the feet salvation” doesn’t he know that he must have faith only and not even go to Christ but just sit at home and wait for the salvation that comes by faith only! Hogwash! This man’s faith caused him to get up from his house, walk into town and to fall down at the master’s feet. Far more “WORK” than Mr. Hanson, and those who believe in salvation by faith only would like to see him do, isn’t it?"
You are misrepresenting the "faith" position again. The issue is not what the person does after they come to faith and salvation in Christ. Everyone who is a child of God is expected to live a life of obedience, be baptized, and worship God. The fact that someone "FELL AT THE MASTER’S feet" after coming to faith is in no way in conflict with the position that salvation occurs by faith. It is the expected result of salvation, and a change of ultimate destination. You would be more convincing if you actually understood the positon of "faith" Christians better; or perhaps it is more accurate to say you should rely on accurate arguement of the issues, rather than your common use of lies about us to make your points.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001
Faith:You have said:
“You are misrepresenting the "faith" position again.”
I do not believe that I have misrepresented the faith position at all as you claim. At least there is not evidence of such.
Then you say:
“ The issue is not what the person does after they come to faith and salvation in Christ.”
I agree with you completely on that matter. Indeed we are not talking about what one does after they come to salvation in Christ. We are talking about what one does after they have faith in Christ in order to obtain remission of their sins. For the scriptures do not teach that a person receives remission of sins immediately at the moment that they first believe or accept the truth concerning Christ. Rather they receive remission of their sins when their faith leads them to obey Christ (Heb. 5; 8,9) and his commands given through Peter on the day of Pentecost to, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38) In fact, if you will read that account given in Acts 2 you will find that when Peter said “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. He was talking to people who had “come to faith” and he told them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to obtain0 the remission of sins. That means that even though they had faith they had not yet received the remission of their sins. Which means that they were not yet saved even though they believed in Christ. So, we are talking about what one does by faith to obtain forgiveness of their sins as commanded by God. And repentance of all past sins is something that one does before he is forgiven of those sins and not AFTERWARD and therefore it is something that must happen before on comes to salvation.
And James, in answering his own question “If a man hath faith and have not works Can faith save him?” concluded “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24) SO he is not talking about what we are to do after are saved. He is talking about that which is required in order to salvation. His question is can faith save a person who does not have works and his answer is a resounding NO.
Then you say:
“ Everyone who is a child of God is expected to live a life of obedience, be baptized, and worship God.”
Now, Faith, we understand completely that this is your position and have never misrepresented it. But this is not what the word of God teaches. For no one will ever become a child of God until they repent that their sins may be blotted out first. (Acts 3:19) and be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). For no one will be born again into God’s family until all of their sins are forgiven and this, according to the word of God does not happen at the “moment” one merely believes in Christ. There is not a passage in the Bible that says we are saved the moment we believe in Christ. But rather it teaches that we are forgiven and obtain the remission of our sins when we “repent and are baptized for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). SO a person cannot begin walking a new life until after they have been buried with Christ in baptism and raised from baptism to walk a new life. (Romans 3:3-6; Col. 2:11-13). And from that day forward they are indeed expected to live a life of obedience and worship to God.
Then you say:
“The fact that someone "FELL AT THE MASTER’S feet" after coming to faith is in no way in conflict with the position that salvation occurs by faith.”
Indeed that is true! But it is in complete conflict which the false doctrine of salvation by FAITH ONLY. Or the false notion that salvation comes the moment one believes in Christ.
Then you say that “falling down at the Maters Feet:”
“It is the expected result of salvation, and a change of ultimate destination.”
When this ruler “fell down at the maters feet” he had not yet received healing for his daughter. In fact, shortly after his doing this he was informed that his daughter was dead. But you neglected to notice that this passage is not even talking about “salvation” or “redemption” or Justification. This ruler was not save, or justified the moment he believed in Christ for he was not even seeking salvation for himself but healing for his daughter. SO the passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject that we are discussing but I was responding to those who tried to force it into the service of the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. When in fact the passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of how and when one receives the remission of sins and hence the salvation of their souls. And when people abuse scriptures in this way to teach doctrines that are false sometimes it is necessary argue from their ground.
Then you say:
“You would be more convincing if you actually understood the position of "faith" Christians better;”
Well, we are doing what we can to help others understand the truth. Indeed we appreciate your advice for it is our hope to be convincing or persuasive. For as Paul said, “knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men”. But being convincing is secondary to our primary objective to do as Christ commanded us and preach the gospel (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20) and to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
And you refer to yourselves as “faith Christians”. But given the fact that you are teaching salvation by a dead faith or a faith that is ALONE and not accompanied by obedience to the gospel of Christ (Heb 5:8,9; Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9;). God’s word teaches that you are not “faith Christians”. Instead you are faithless because faith without works is DEAD. Therefore you are not Christians or saved from your sins at all.
Then you say:
“or perhaps it is more accurate to say you should rely on accurate arguement of the issues, rather than your common use of lies about us to make your points.”
You do not mention any arguments that are not “accurate” at all so we have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish to assert that any of our arguments are not correct then we would be glad to hear what you say if you will simply specify the one’s that you think are not accurate and offer evidence which proves them to be inaccurate. If you will do that we will either correct you if you are mistaken or correct ourselves if we are inaccurate as you claim. But thus far you have not proven that any of the arguments upon which we rely are not reliable or inaccurate.
Then as far as your false accusation that we are commonly making use of lies about you is simply a lie in itself. DO tell us what lie we have told about you? It is by your own words that we see you are teaching that persons can be saved by “FAITH ONLY”. And that is the truth and we have showed it by quoting the words of those in this forum that represent the position that you appear to hold.
SO, if you will stop teaching that men are saved by “FAITH ONLY” we will stop pointing out the fact that the scriptures teach, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2: 24). Otherwise we will perpetually resist that false doctrine of salvation by faith only which is causing thousands of otherwise good people to lose their souls by deceiving them into believing that they are forgiven of their sins. When in fact they are YET IN THEIR SINS because they have not obeyed the command of Christ through Peter, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001
Faith,Thanks for your message - it is always great to get a fresh perspective.
You make an excellent point…
"You are misrepresenting the "faith" position again. The issue is not what the person does after they come to faith and salvation in Christ."
Mr. Saffold has never been able to take off his denominational goggles. He must be too frightened with the prospect that his salvation through works gospel is an anathema. With his "salvation" built upon sinking sand, we cannot expect him to represent the true gospel of grace through faith not of works. This has been the story of human history - attempting to reach God on their own human failings.
Repeatedly I have pointed out Mr. Saffold's failure in correctly articulating our position
Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works
He continually asserts
Faith = Salvation
Obviously this is not what we teach yet he continues to misrepresent the truth of the matter - this is only indicative of insincerity. Anyone sincere in there love for truth would resolve the apparent paradox we find in the Scriptures. By continually demanding that the whole of Scripture lay "hostage" to a few phrases pulled out of context is not even logical.
In Christ's love,
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001
Brethren and Friends:Since Mr. Hanson cannot answer the arguments that we have made against his false doctrine of salvation by faith only, which he attempted to teach until he realized that it was not the truth. He has since tried to deny that he ever said any such thing and we have proven now many times that he did say it. The only option left is for him to begin to act as if he has given us a response when he knows, as all of our readers do as well, that he has not given one because he does not know just how to unravel his pathetic self contradiction. So, in his efforts to make things appear, as he would like for them to actually be, he responds to me through our friend, “Faith”, as follows:
“Faith, Thanks for your message - it is always great to get a fresh perspective.”
Well he does not show us just what it is in her response that was “fresh”. In fact everything she said was the same old nonsense that Mr. Hanson has been saying. There is nothing “fresh” about it. But he wants to say there is so that he can make it appear that he doctrines have not been mentioned before. When in fact they have been for quite some time.
Then he says:
“You make an excellent point…”
Naturally he thinks any point that agrees with his false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY is an “excellent point”. But in truth the point that she made was the following and we have in our response to it shown that the point is misleading and therefore it cannot be “excellent” as Mr. Hanson claims. Her point was: "You are misrepresenting the "faith" position again.”
We have proven in our last post, which was a response to her, that we have not “misrepresented” them in the least. And neither Faith nor Mr. Hanson has bothered to respond to our answer to her words concerning this matter.
Then the rest of her so-called “excellent point was:
“ The issue is not what the person does after they come to faith and salvation in Christ."
TO which we responded and neither Faith nor Mr. Hanson has bothered to notice or even attempt to answer. Our response to this was:
“I agree with you completely on that matter. Indeed we are not talking about what one does after they come to salvation in Christ. We are talking about what one does after they have faith in Christ in order to obtain remission of their sins. For the scriptures do not teach that a person receives remission of sins immediately at the moment that they first believe or accept the truth concerning Christ. Rather they receive remission of their sins when their faith leads them to obey Christ (Heb. 5; 8,9) and his commands given through Peter on the day of Pentecost to, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38) In fact, if you will read that account given in Acts 2 you will find that when Peter said “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. He was talking to people who had “come to faith” and he told them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to obtain0 the remission of sins. That means that even though they had faith they had not yet received the remission of their sins. Which means that they were not yet saved even though they believed in Christ. So, we are talking about what one does by faith to obtain forgiveness of their sins as commanded by God. And repentance of all past sins is something that one does before he is forgiven of those sins and not AFTERWARD and therefore it is something that must happen before on comes to salvation.
And James, in answering his own question “If a man hath faith and have not works Can faith save him?” concluded “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24) SO he is not talking about what we are to do after are saved. He is talking about that which is required in order to salvation. His question is can faith save a person who does not have works and his answer is a resounding NO.” But Mr. Hanson finds it far more convenient to merely ignore those arguments as he has done many of the arguments that we presented directly to him.
But then he says:
“Mr. Saffold has never been able to take off his denominational goggles.”
The most likely reason for this is that these “denominational goggles” exist only in Mr. Hanson’s imagination”. For he has never been able to prove that Mr. Saffold has any connection with a denomination or that he owns a pair of Goggles much less that he is wearing them. He has never been able to prove that Mr. Saffold has ever in his entire life “joined” any denomination. All that Mr. Saffold has ever done is to obey the gospel of Christ, which made him a Christian and automatically placed him into the family of God. And unless he can prove that God’s family is a denomination it would be impossible for him to prove that Mr. Saffold belongs to one and is wearing any “goggles” issued by one. It is apparent that he does this because he just cannot bear to allow anyone to be a Christian only without belonging to any denomination at all. He knows that one can be a Christian without belonging to a denomination and when he meets one who is doing just that he must insist, without any proof whatsoever, that we belong to any denomination. We do not belong to one and Mr. Hanson cannot prove that we belong to one. But he asserts it and we are just expected to believe it for no other reason.
Then he says:
“ He must be too frightened with the prospect that his salvation through works gospel is an anathema.”
Now here he is speaking of “Mr. Saffold”. And for one who does not want anyone to misrepresent his position he shows that he does not have any aversion to misrepresenting the position of others. For we have never said that salvation is through works ALONE without faith. We have taught what the scriptures teach that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). And we have shown that when the Ephesians were saved by grace through faith WHEN their faith lead them to obey the command of Christ given by Paul to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 19:1-6). But we have never said WORKS saves us without faith in Christ. We have simply shown that the kind of faith through which God’s grace saves us is a faith that WORKS. For we are not saved by a dead faith that does not work. And this is exactly what the word of God teaches. For we have shown that James asked the question, “What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14). His question was can faith save without WORKS. And his inspired answer was, “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:20-24). Thus James answered his own question, which was can faith save a man without WORKS, and his answer was a resounding NO. And he explained in the process that “faith wrought (or worked) with his works and by WORKS was faith MADE PERFECT or complete.
So we are advocating that we are saved by grace through a perfected or complete faith in God. And Mr. Hanson is advocating that we are saved by a DEAD FAITH. Which is DEAD because it is alone and unaccompanied by obedience to the gospel of Christ which requires repentance (Acts 3:19; 2:38) confession with the mouth (Romans 10:10) and immersion in water (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38;Acts 8:35-40; 1 Peter 3:20,21). So, we are advocating what the scriptures teach. That we must have the GENUINE faith which is perfected because it is “wrought with our works” (James 2:22). Mr. Hanson is advocating that Christ taught that we are saved by “believing alone” which James says faith cannot do. For James most assuredly concluded “faith if it hath not works” cannot save a man. And Mr. Hanson has been unable to show that James was wrong about it, now has he?
Then he says:
“ With his "salvation" built upon sinking sand, we cannot expect him to represent the true gospel of grace through faith not of works.”
He does not prove that Mr. Saffold’s “salvation” is built on “sinking sand”. He merely states it. And this is his method of argument. He does not prove it by any argument at all. He merely expects intelligent people to believe him just because he says something is true. The truth is that we are teaching exactly the same as James taught concerning salvation by a complete faith in Christ and not by a dead faith that is alone and void of any intent to obey God’s will. And we have proven it from James and Mr. Hanson has failed miserably to even attempt to answer or reply to these arguments.
Then he says:
“This has been the story of human history - attempting to reach God on their own human failings.”
I do not think that Mr. Hanson could even begin to prove that this has been the story of human history. One could easily show that the story of human history indicates a lack of concern for salvation in the first place instead of a history of persons really trying to “reach God on their own failings”. And he does indeed deliberately misrepresent us in this statement. For he cannot show one place where we have urged anyone to seek or attempt to “reach God” on their own human failings. Faith is a human response to the gospel produced by the testimony received from God’s word (Romans 10:17) and just because the response of faith is human does not mean that one is trying to reach God on his own “human failings”. Faith in God is not a human failing and I am sure that anyone with the slightest amount of common sense can see this. And repentance is also commanded of God (acts 3:19) that our sins might be remitted or forgiven (Acts 2:38) but I would like for Mr. Hanson to just try to prove that repentance is a human failing. Now he can prove that man often “fails to repent”. But he cannot prove that when they do repent in compliance with the command of God that they are participating in a “human failing”. And baptism is also required of God as stated by Christ, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be save: he that believeth not shall be condemned”. (Mark 16:16). And baptism, along with repentance is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) just as the blood of Christ is “for the remission of sins” (Matt26: 28). And because it is a command of God for this purpose it is a work of Go (Col. 2:11-13) just as faith is a WORK of God (John 6:29). And I would like for Mr. Hanson to make some effort to prove that baptism is a “human failing” as well. Now the truth is that we have been advocating salvation by grace through a genuine, living, and complete faith in Christ. We are saved by a faith that obeys Christ (Heb. 5:8,9) by not ONLY BELIEVING in him but believing in his enough to submit in humble obedience to His lordship. And to do the things commanded of God in the gospel, which are essential to the obedience to the gospel. For those who do not OBEY THE GOSPEL will be lost forever (2 Thess. 1:8,9).
Then he says:
“Repeatedly I have pointed out Mr. Saffold's failure in correctly articulating our position”
No, Mr. Hanson has actually repeatedly misrepresented his own position if he is telling the truth that he does not believe in salvation by faith only as the following statement from him makes it abundantly clear:
“““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 from the above statement which is from Mr. Hanson’s own words we see that he taught that Christ “mentioned on numerous occasions that one is SAVED BY BELIEVING ALONE”. Now those were Mr. Hanson’s words not mine. And if he does not believe that one is actually saved by “BELIEVING ALONE” then he has misrepresented himself for in his above words he was teaching that Christ taught that one is saved by “believing alone”. He did not say that Christ taught that we are saved by “grace + Faith = redemption +good works” now did he? No, Mr. Hanson, not Mr. Saffold, said that Jesus taught “on numerous occasions that one is saved by BELIEVING ALONE”.
But he now gives us a different formula than the one that he claimed Christ taught in his above quote as follows:
“Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works”
But Mr. Hanson has never admitted that his statement that Christ taught “one is saved by believing only" was in error. Even though not a single one of the passages that he cited to prove that nonsense has the word “ALONE” in them in any place. And even though he now pretends that he has believed all along that “BELIEVING ALONE” does NOT SAVE us. Now if he does not believe that “BELIEVING ALONE” saves us then why did he tell us that Christ taught that “BELIEVING ALONE” saves us? If Christ actually taught what he claims that he taught then Mr. Hanson is wrong to teach otherwise. And if he did not teach we are saved by “BELIVING ALONE then Mr. Hanson was wrong to say that Christ did teach it. SO, do tell us Mr. Hanson which is it? Do you believe that Christ taught that “believing alone” saves us? And it you do will you admit that you teach the same thing? Or will you admit that Christ never taught that “believing alone” saves us and admit that you were wrong to falsely teach that he did? I suppose that those two questions will merely be added to the list of those that Mr. Hanson will pretend that we have never asked him. But I ask them for our readers to see so that they can watch and see if he will answer them. But he definitely did not say that Christ taught his formula did he? He did not say that Christ said that ““Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works”. No he said that Christ said “on numerous occasions that one is saved by believing alone, now didn’t he? So now we must wonder if he still believes his formula even though it is contrary to what he claimed that Christ taught. Or does he claim that his formula is teaching the exact same thing that he claimed that Christ taught when he said on “numerous occasions that one is saved by believing only? Do not hold your breath waiting for Mr. Hanson to answer that question. For you see, if his formula is teaching the opposite of what he claimed that Christ taught when he said on numerous occasions that “one is saved by believing alone” then he must give up his formula as being false. But if his formula is teaching the same thing that he claims that Christ taught when he said on numerous occasions that one is saved by believing alone”. Then his formula is teaching salvation by “believing alone” which is the exact same as salvation by faith only and Mr. Hanson is found to be guilty of teaching salvation by faith only. And if that is the case he is guilty of lying to us when he claims that he NEVER TAUGHT we are saved by faith only, now isn’t he? So, we ask him to come back in here and tell us just which one is the truth. For it matters not which one is the truth in the above cases, in either situation Mr. Hanson is either guilty of teaching the opposite of Christ who taught salvation by faith only. Or he is guilty in the other case of teaching the opposite of Christ by teaching salvation by faith only when Christ taught salvation by “grace +faith”.
Then he says:
“He continually asserts Faith = Salvation”
No, Mr. Hanson we do not assert this. We deny this to be the truth. It is Mr. Hanson who asserted that Christ taught salvation by “believing alone” and he has not yet recanted that statement, now has he? And if Christ said that “believing alone” saves us then His formula would look like this:
Faith =Salvation
And that is exactly what Mr. Hanson said that Christ taught on “numerous occasions”, isn’t it? Now that was not our assertion, it was Mr. Hanson's assertion about Christ. And we agree with him that Christ NEVER taught such nonsense but Mr. Hanson did in fact claim that Christ said, “on numerous occasions that one is saved by “believing alone”, didn’t he? And if he was wrong about that, and we believe that he was, why does he not have the honesty and integrity to come back into this forum and admit that he was wrong about it? And admit that he was originally teaching salvation by faith only but he now does not believe that we are save by believing alone? Could it be because he still believes “believing alone” saves us. And is now denying it only because his use of the word “alone” makes it impossible for him to deceive others into believing it. For it makes it too easy for his opponents to point out the fact that Christ never used the words “believing alone” in relation to the subject of salvation from sin?
Then he says:
“Obviously this is not what we teach yet he continues to misrepresent the truth of the matter - this is only indicative of insincerity.”
Well, Mr. Hanson this is also not true. From what we have seen from my comments above it is not so “obvious that this is not what Mr. Hanson “teaches”. Because it is Mr. Hanson who continues to misrepresent his teachings by continuing to stand by his statement that Christ taught on numerous occasions that one is saved by “believing alone”. Now we, Mr. Hanson, did not make that statement! It was made by you and it causes us to not believe you when you say that you are not teaching salvation by ‘believing alone”. And until you come in her and admit that those words from you were wrong and they do not accurately represent what you are teaching we will continue to justly accuse you of teaching salvation “believing alone” which is the same as salvation by “faith only”. And we will do it, and we have done it, SINCERELY because of your own representation of the matter and not any misrepresentations of what you have said. And if you have misrepresented yourself in these words then you have no one but yourself to blame for the misrepresentation. But you can correct the misrepresentation by coming in here and repudiating your words which are so terribly misrepresenting your position if that is really the truth. But we doubt if you will do such. And it just might be that your failure to deal with this mater is an indication of a lack of “sincerity” on your part.
“Anyone sincere in there love for truth would resolve the apparent paradox we find in the Scriptures.”
We have done just that Mr. Hanson. But you do not like it for you must maintain your false doctrine of salvation by faith only even it is the cause of the false perception that you have that there is an apparent paradox found in the scriptures concerning this subject. We see no reason to believe there is a “paradox” here unless on begins by believing the false doctrine of salvation by faith only which we reject as a lie.
Then he says:
“ By continually demanding that the whole of Scripture lay "hostage" to a few phrases pulled out of context is not even logical.”
Now with this statement we again have Mr. Hanson asserting that which he has not ever even attempted to prove and which he cannot ever prove. We have not held any scripture “hostage” and we have taken none of them out of their context at all. And he has no evidence that we have done so. In fact, if he knew of any passage which we took out of context he could tell us which one’s and prove to us from their context that what we said about them was not true. But he has not done this, now has he? The reason is obvious. He cannot do this or he would be very happy to do it, now wouldn’t he?
SO, Mr. Hanson is not teaching the truth and we have shown now numerous times that he is in opposition to the doctrine of Christ. We will wait to see if he will correct his errors and answer our questions, which we have put to him in this post.
And Mr. Hanson has done nothing to answer our arguments that he claims are illogical with out bothering to demonstrate to us or show us how it is that he reached the conclusion that they are illogical, now has he?
For Christ and those who love the truth in him.
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001