Hi,

Forgive me if this subject has been brought up here before.

I was reading a book by a non-instrumental church of Christ author who stated that unless one believes that he/she is being baptized specifically for the remission of sins and to recieve the Holy Spirit, their baptism is not valid.

I couldn't disagree more, but wondered what others might think.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Answers

Barry....

Miracles are not proof of the work of God. Satan can work miralces as well!!

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

I believe it to be incorrect to simply view immersion as "an act of obedience."

Immersion is also a part of the grace of God. You see....God didn't have to tell us to do anything to be saved.

However, since He has told us what to do to be saved....than all one needs to know at their baptism is that they are accepting the grace of God through their baptism.

Darrell....I never baptize a first timer that comes forward. I would remind you of the Great Commission which tells us to "make disciples....then baptize."

I have an obligation to teach and make one a disciple before having them submit to baptism.

Did Jesus not say...."sit down and count the cost??"

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Just because you give glory to God for something Barry....does not mean that God is the originator of it. The Mormons praise God for the book of Mormon!!

Deut. 13:1ff....

"If a prophet, or one who fortells by dreams appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) and let us worship them you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer."

Concerning the great apostasy....Paul writes in 2 Thess. 2.....

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accord with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders."......(take note in vs. 4....that this same one sets himself as God).

So Barry.....when one says they have done this that or the other miracle....and then leaves out an intregal part of the salvational process...i.e., baptism.....I can only say with the apostle Paul in Galatians 1....."let him be accursed."

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

EXACTLY Michael....HOWEVER....you would agree would you not....that one of the reasons we preachers insist on doing pre-marital counseling (or at least we should).....is so that couples understand some "basics" BEFORE they make a commitment???

Is it a strech then to insist that individuals understand some "basics" before they make a commitment to Christ???....especially when this is a far more serious commitment.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Just guessing....but my guess is Connie....E. Lee would rather you NOT pray for him.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Dear Lord....

Please remove the legion of idiot demons that have filled Connie's mind.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Barry....#1....you sir....are a liar!!! To suggest our brotherhood has gone that far to the left is a terrible misrepresentation of the truth. The fact is....you left Kentucky because the state is full of people and churches who cling pernaciously to the truth...so you moved somewhere more open to your liberal bent.

Secondly....even if it were true....ecclesiastical handcounts....DO NOT determine truth!!! Did Jesus Himself not say...."The way is narrow that leads to eternal life and (listen to this Barry)....FEW find it."

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

AMEN....Brother Lee!!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Barry....

Your last two posts were target rich environments....where do I start??

First....in typical liberal fashion, rather than debate the issues....you want to have what boils down to a contest of "mine is bigger than yours."

Second....rather than read E. Lee's post....you choose to just brush them off. I'm sure it is because they make you uncomfortable. Or is it that you are too busy reading the latest church growth sales tactics?? What is it this month?? Schuller, Willow Creek, et. al.??

As per Connie....as somone said....in essense....don't jump into the middle of something you have no knowledge of. Connie's only purpose for being here is to cause dissension. People have tried the sweet, sugar coated, milktoast approach with her....to know avail. Therefore, I treat her like the word says to treat those who cause dissension.

As per how I know you?? Simply from the statements you have made on this forum. You are extremely transparent.

Lastly....how do you do it?? How do you blatantly mispresent the facts the way you do??

To say that Alexander Campbell considered himself a Christian before his baptism is pure, liberal, revisionist history.

Here are the facts. After a lengthy study on the subject of baptism he came to the following conclusions....

Baptism was always by immersion. Baptism was always on adults. Baptism was administered on a simple confesson of faith. He had not been immersed. He would be immersed.

From this day forward Campbell taught the necessity of immersion to receive the forgiveness of sin and the Holy Spirit.

One more note of history that you have chosen to twist. We did not kick out the denominations....they kicked us out!!!

After Campbell preached his "Sermon on the Law"....the Baptist Redstone Association disfellowshiped Campbell and his followers....and he was not allowed to fill their pulpits anymore. It was at this point in the movement that Campbell realized that restoration could not take place within the denominations....it would have to take place outside.

So Mr. Davis....it appears the Baptist asked us to leave.

Really....I shouldn't rush to judgment. Maybe you are not doing revisionist history. Maybe you are not that familiar with the history of the RM at all (as most preacher today are not).

I hope it's the later. If it is not....then please cite for us some historical references from Campbell, Scott, et. al....that will back up your assertions.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

The question might even need to develop a bit deeper. To what extant would one need to know the "purpose" of immersion for it to be valid? Young people (pre- or early-teens) might be able to recite the purpose of the immersion, and have some knowledge, yet not totally understand. Later in life, after studying the Word closely, their understanding is more complete. Many times this is when someone comes to say "Do I need to be immersed again, now that I understand more fully?"

I saw this happen at Florida Christian College. One of the professors taught Life of Christ. Each time he hit the Passion Week studies, many other students would skip class to sit in these lectures. He brought home the grace of God in the sending of His Son in a way I have never heard since. There were students, who had been immersed years before, who after sitting through those classes questioned the validity of their previous immersion.

Then ... when reading the Word, we find that there are numerous "reasons" we are to be immersed, including, but not limited to, the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Should a person have a complete understanding of all of those reasons.

What would you (the readers of this forum) do with a person who visited your congregation one Sunday AM, heard the Word being preached, and came forward (without any prior expectation) to be immersed into Christ? I know folks who would "put them off" (a bad choice of words ... sorry) till they could teach them more fully. But what if the person was a trucker, or someone else just passing through. You might never have the chance to teach further. Do we just let them leave, without immersing them into Christ? Hard decision, I know. What would ya'll do?

It's kinda like saying to someone who comes forward, "There's only one question I can ask of you -- do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and do you take him as your Savior?" The fact is, there are many questions we could, and maybe should, ask of a person who wishes to be immersed. Oh well, I got off track there a bit -- sorry.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry D........

As a matter of dogma, I too would disagree with the policy you quoted. The Bible says the soul that IS baptized shall be saved, not the soul that understands all of the theology behing Baptism shall be saved.

Now with that being said, the question begs to be asked, "why would someone submit to baptism if it Wasn't for Salvation?":

To fulfill all righteousness? - nope.....Jesus is our righteousness and He took care of that matter.

As a "work" of righteousness? - nope....."works" don't work.

To get a warm, "fuzzy" feeling inside? - this is done all the time, but did Peter (or any writer of Scripture) say to be Baptized for a warm feeling or for Salvation?

I posted in another thread a couple of days ago, as an example, my own baptism as an example. I was baptized at age 8 in a Baptist church. I was too young & dumb(smart) to understand Calvinism or Baptist Doctrine........all I knew is that the Bible said I was a sinner; that my sin would condemn me to Hell; that Jesus said one had to be born of the "water and the spirit" in enter the kingdom of Heaven; and that Peter said I had to repent & be Baptized to get forgiveness of my sins. Seemed like a simple formula, so I went forward to be Baptized.

Now (in my old age),I know the theologies behind Baptism, and I'm perfectly comfortable with what I did as a child. My conscience is clear in the matter, which is important because of what it says in Heb 9:14, "how much more will the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, CLEANSE YOUR CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God?"

Maybe that is the test both you and Darrell ask about........is the person comfortable with their Baptism as being for Biblical purposes. If he is (like I am).....Great, praise God, and get busy with spreading the Gospel. If not......fix the situation.....get Baptized again to wipe out those last doubts and get on with the Gospel work ahead. Looking behind and wondering will not get the job done.

Darrell,

In the example you gave (the unexpected 1 time visitor), I would simple ask him why he/she wanted to be Baptised and let them use their own words to validate (or invalidate) the Baptism. This is how I handled my own kids when they wanted to be Baptized. I never asked them or pushed them to do it..........I let them come to me in their own time and tell me the reasons why they desired baptism............let me tell you, you may be absolutely SHOCKED by just how much an 8 year old understands about Scripture when they have been taught by good teachers & preachers (there's that Youth Program "effect" kicking in).

Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Hi, I have had people from over 18 different denominations join our church in the last two years. If they are unimmersed (we have tons of Lutherans and Catholics up here) we immerse them. If they have been immersed and I ask them "why were you baptized?", without fail they answer "out of obedience". That's good enough for me, and more importantly, I'm sure it's good enough for God.

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

I think Barry and Darrell bring up valid questions for those who believe one must be water baptized before Christ can redeem them. These questions only touch the tip of the iceberg, many more follow.

I was born again at 6 years old. At 8 I heard that Jesus wanted us to be water baptized - so in obedience to His will I was water baptized.

That is the Scriptural and most logical reason to be water baptized IMHO.

It wasn't until a year and a half ago I had ever heard about this new doctrine of having to be water baptized to be redeemed. Amazing, if I actually believed this, I have been without Christ for the past 27 years! Even though I have seen the lame walk, the blind see, people throw away crutches, eye glasses, hearing aides and braces totally healed by the power of God. The past 12 years of ministry have been a very exciting adventure and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I am certainly glad I have never been shackled by the type of legalism and dogma I have experience on this forum.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Some things never change.

Satan works miracles? Could you give me an example where God got glory from a miracle of Satan? Thank you.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Brethren:

Barry Davis has ask the following question:

“I was reading a book by a non-instrumental church of Christ author who stated that unless one believes that he/she is being baptized specifically for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit, their baptism is not valid.”

Now, I do wonder, just why Mr. Davis thinks the fact that our brethren do not use instruments of music in their worship has to do with this question that he asked? Since the majority of the Brethren reading this forum do use an instrument in their worship. It does indeed seem that Mr. Davis expects to gain some sympathy for his unstated position but stated opposition to the author’s position. He hopes obviously to do this by beginning with this feeble attempt to prejudice our readers in this forum against the position held by the author of this book on the basis of the fact that he worship God in a scriptural manner. For we all agree that it is not sinful or wrong to worship God without the use of instruments of music. WE do not agree that it is right to use them but we all at least agree that it is right not to use them, don’t we? SO, Mr. Davis’ argument goes like this:

Major premise: An author who does not use instruments of music in the worship cannot know the truth on any subject.

Minor premise: The author of the book I have been reading does not use instruments of music in his worship to God

Conclusion: Therefore the author of this book cannot be correct in stating that one must understand the purpose of baptism or it is not acceptable to God.

And that argument is pathetically false because it cannot proven that it is impossible for an author who worships God without instrumental accompaniment to know the truth on any subject. SO the major premise falls on its very face and Mr. Hanson’s attempt to prejudice our readers against this authors position before and without hearing any of his arguments is a miserable way to claim to be objectively reviewing any particular issue.

Now, I will have something to say about this matter later but I do not have time at the moment to go into it. But I ask that all of you read a passage of scripture.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 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 6:16-18)

“And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? (Mark 15:16).

“And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:33).

“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45).

“The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,” (Eph. 1:18)

“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” (Eph. 4:18).

“Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is].” (Eph. 5:17).

“For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;” (Col. 1:9).

“That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;” (Col. 2:2).

“Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (Titus 2:2).

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20).

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15).

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;” (1 Cor. 15:1)

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:” (2 Cor. 4:3).

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Cor. 4:4).

“I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” (John 8:32).

I shall discuss these and numerous other important passages in relation to this subject of how much we must understand in our obedience to the gospel which includes faith, repentance, confession and baptism. For we want God’s word concerning this subject. The opinions of men generally pervert God’s word on most subjects. Let us turn instead to the word of God and read all that he has to say about the matter before we “form opinions” and go forth teaching them.

Now Barry was apparently unwilling to affirm his position clearly and defend it with argumentation. He wanted to know what we men thought about it. But we want to know what GOD has to say about the matter in HIS word. But in our next post we will discuss these passages and several more and explain the bearing that they have upon the question asked by Mr. Davis.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Uh...E. Lee,

You make a lot of baseless assumptions. I simply mentioned the author was non-instrumental, because he is...umm...non-instrumental. I agree with much of what my non-instrumental friends write. It had nothing to do with my question.

I'm starting to believe you're either a conspiracy theorist, or a paranoid, or both.

Why can't a guy just ask a simple question and get an answer? Sheesh...

In Christ,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Mark wrote,

"The Bible says the soul that IS baptized shall be saved, not the soul that understands all of the theology behing Baptism shall be saved."

So tell me, is the soul who is baptised and understands that baptism is an act of obedience and submission to God after the salvation processt as saved as the soul who is baptized and understands that baptism is a part of submission to God in the salvation process?

Is this argument, from two sides who agree at least that baptism is an ordination of Christ's which we are in good conscience to submit to, much ado about nothing? Can we pronounce anathemas one side to another on this issue, when the Bible says, "the soul that IS baptized shall be saved", regardless of where they fall on where baptism fits into the whole salvation process?

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Boy, I can agree with that last thought, Superhero!!

Good to see your name, John.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Some folks have asked me if they needed to be re-baptized because they felt that they didn't fully understand everything when they were baptized, either due to being too young or they just didn't understand. Well, did you understand everything when you stood at the altar and said, "I do?" I know now ten years later that those words mean so much more than I could have ever comprehended that day, but it does not change the efficacy of the experience. I'm not any less married now and neither is the believer any less a believer because they didn't understand everything at the time of their baptism.

I would make a difference for the person who was baptized on what I consider "false pretenses." If a person is "baptized" as a result of already becoming a Christian, they have not been Scripturally baptized, they just got wet religiously which may make you feel good but does not do what a believer's baptism does (wash away our sins and give us the gift of the Holy Spirit).

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Lest I get fed to the dogs on my last response...I meant to say that the false pretense is they "think" they have become a Christian and then are baptized...I am not saying that this is what is actually the case.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry:

You have said:

“Uh...E. Lee, You make a lot of baseless assumptions.”

I can understand how that a person cannot help stuttering in their speech. This is a physical and sometimes psychological phenomenon that in some people cannot be helped. But I cannot understand why one stutters in his writing without such being deliberate. SO, do tell us why it is necessary for you to stutter in your writing. Does it have some meaning that we do not understand? Maybe you would like to explain the “uh” above and give us the etymology of the word and explain your usage of it so that we can understand what exactly you mean by it? For we confess not being able to comprehend it real purpose and intent.

It is you, Barry, who has made a fatal assumption here. For you assumed quite incorrectly that if you could just mention that the author of this unknown book was one who did not use instruments of music in his worship to God. That you could thereby prejudice our readers against what he was teaching without having to go to the trouble of mentioning his arguments and giving an answer to them. You are the one who made the statement that the author you were reading did not use instruments in his worship to God. If you had a question to ask you could have simply asked it. But you did not want to allow the question to be discussed on it’s own merit but in the light of what you believed to be the source of the position which you hoped to controvert. And it was your obvious intent to do so without stating your position and making arguments to support it.

Then you continue to stutter:

“ I simply mentioned the author was non-instrumental, because he is...umm...non-instrumental.”

Indeed it is a fact that the person of which you speak does not use instruments in his worship to God but that is not the reason you mentioned it. For that fact has absolutely nothing to do with the question that you asked. Unless you were trying to set the stage in a forum where people might be prejudiced in favor of your position against the author’s because he already is in opposition to them concerning the issue of the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship. You have not done a very good job of hiding your deliberate attempt to prejudice our readers against the truth before you began the discussion of your question. If you only wanted to ask a question you would have asked it without bringing in matters that have absolutely NOTHING to do with your question. And especially have at the least the potential to prejudice our readers in favor of the opposite of the author’s position without even giving us the benefit of the arguments that he makes. I can assure you that you would not last ten minutes in an actual debate with this brother who does not use instruments of music in his worship concerning this subject of how much one must understand about baptism. Assertions without proof, which you constantly make, do not work in the context of an actual debate. And you would not be able to set things up in a prejudicial way before the discussion began. And placing you upon even ground with the author would be a great disadvantage to you so it seems.

Then you say:

“I agree with much of what my non-instrumental friends write.”

Now that would be a good idea! Why do not you give us the benefit of a discussion of the “MUCH” which your friends who do not use instruments write of which you agree? In fact, which of his arguments that he made in his book do you AGREE with? You did not want to tell us that did you? For that would tend to nullify the prejudice that you were trying to produce against the author’s position on this subject, now wouldn’t it?

Why not try to reach the author of this book and invite him to join us in this discussion? Now wouldn’t that be wonderful! If we are going to review his position shouldn’t he at least have the opportunity to be present? Now, it may not be possible for him to be present but at least the statements that he makes in his book might be quoted. And you might want to recommend his book and tell us who the author is so that we can go and read it for ourselves. You have asked us to think about the subject but you do not seem to want us to run out and buy a copy of the book that you speak about. You do seem to want to prejudice this matter and hide the arguments that this brother has made. SO do tell us, who is this published author? What is the title of his book? And where might we obtain a copy of it so that we can hear some of the arguments that he makes and examine them to compare them with the word of God to see if they are true? You do not want to tell us those things now do you? You only want us to know that he does not believe in using instruments in his worship. A fact that has NOTHING to do with the question that you asked. But you do not seem to want us to read his book, which is concerning the very question that you asked. You do not seem to want us to know anything about this author and his book that actually has something to do with the question that you asked now do you? You have told us nothing about the author of this book except the one fact that might be calculated to produce prejudice in the minds of our readers against this unknown author’s position. It is pretty obvious that your intent in mentioning that one fact about the author was for more devious reasons than the simple fact that it is true. WE shall see if you are willing to tell us more about the book which you speak of but do not refer us to read. Are you willing that our readers should have access to it? We wait for your answer to this question.

Then you say:

“ It had nothing to do with my question.”

Indeed we all seemed to catch on to that fact right away, didn’t we? Then why did you bring it up? You begin the discussion of a question that you appear to have some interest in and that you appear to consider important by stating facts that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION! And you could have easily known that the fact, which had nothing to do with the question, could have easily prejudiced our readers against the author’s position. You knew that could be the case but you stated it anyway even though it had nothing to do with the question you were going to ask. Now if you were not trying to prejudice the case why did you bring facts not related to the case into this “court” for our judgement concerning it? If anyone had done a similar thing in a court of law the judge would have immediately suppressed that information because it did not pertain to the case at hand. And he would have correctly admonished the counselor that made that attempt to not try anything like that again, wouldn’t he? You are right it has nothing to do with the question! And that in itself is evidence that you presented the information in relation to the question for simply NO REASON at all or your were hoping that it would pave the way for you efforts to oppose the author’s position more safely. Now, you doing this impressed me with the simply fact that you were intending to prejudice the case. If you were not then you just do not know what you are doing. But whether it was intentional or otherwise it does have nothing to do with the question. And our readers now know that the question should be decided upon the basis of what God’s word says and not any predetermined resistance based upon the fact that the author of this unknown book does not agree with many in this forum who use instruments in their worship.

Then you say:

“ I'm starting to believe you're either a conspiracy theorist, or a paranoid, or both.”

Now where have I said anything about any theory of any conspiracy? Is this just yet another effort to prejudice our readers so that they might not want to give a fair hearing to any arguments that I might make for fear that they might be drawn into the web of some “conspiracy theorist”. Or worse, they might be listening to someone who is “paranoid”? Let me tell you that the readers of this forum, who have been with us for some length of time, have learned to notice these foolish and feeble attempts to prejudice them in advance of a discussion. And these pathetic attempts to prepare their minds so that they cannot think of the issue independently of anything not related to it and ignore them. And to watch that person carefully who made such attempts for they know that they cannot trust him or her to be objective in their examination of the facts.

Then you say:

“ Why can't a guy just ask a simple question and get an answer?”

I do not know why you have trouble “asking a simple question” Barry. You tell us why it is that you cannot manage to ask “just as a simple question” without trying to prejudice our readers in the direction of the answer that you wish them to give you? We will answer your questions but we will also notice all the things that you mentioned that have nothing to do with the question also. If you do not like this then next time we recommend that you “ask a simple question” and leave out matters not related to it. And you will get an answer though the answer may not be the one you are tempted to persuade us to give you and it may not be an answer that you particularly like.

Then you say:

“ Sheesh...”

What does this word mean? Is it just an “idle word” with no meaning? Seems that way to me.

Barry, you can ask a simple question, if that is what you would actually do. But you cannot get by with efforts to use prejudice in the way you have done in asking your question. It just will not work here as it may have worked for you in other places.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Brother Danny:

I haven’t much time this morning but I wanted to say AMEN AND AMEN to your following words:

“Is it a strech then to insist that individuals understand some "basics" before they make a commitment to Christ???....especially when this is a far more serious commitment.”

You are absolutely correct. It is not a stretch at all to insist that those who come to Christ understand some “basics”. Phillip insisted that the Eunuch “believed with all of his heart” which would include his understanding in his heart”. (Acts 8:37). We cannot speak of one’s obtaining the forgiveness of their sins without requiring that they understand at least that they have sins that need to be forgiven and what God requires of them in order to obtain that forgiveness. For those whom Peter had convinced on the day of Pentecost of their sins wanted to know or “understand” what they could do about it. For they had crucified the Messiah! And they had been persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by Peter’s preaching and they knew that they had sins that needed forgiveness. And they asked “Men and brethren what shall we do? And Peter not only TOLD them what to do but he explained the purpose and reason for their doing it because he wanted them to understand it’s relationship to their concern about their sins and what to do about them. SO he said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). Now this was not so hard to understand but it is necessary for men to understand that they are lost in sin and how to obtain forgiveness or remission of their sins. And this case is proof of it. And we are not talking about something that is so “Difficult” to understand, are we? We are talking about what God has revealed for us to understand. Any one who is attempting to become a Christian for any reason other than seeking forgiveness from God for his or her sins has no idea what they are doing. No one can become a Christian or obtain forgiveness from God for sins that they have not repented of and obeyed God’s conditions for their pardon. If they do not understand this simple fact they cannot obtain forgiveness. If they are not coming to Christ in God’s prescribed way to obtain the forgiveness of their sins they will not be forgiven. For those who speak as if there is no need to understand the purpose of baptism fail to realize that those who come to Christ must understand the purpose of coming to him which is to obtain forgiveness of their sins. And if they must understand this much then they must understand everything that God has connected with receiving remission or forgiveness of their sins. We cannot treat baptism as if it is isolated form our obtaining the remission of our sins. For that is the very purpose of Baptism (Acts 2:38). Baptism does not alone and isolated from faith repentance, confession give us the remission of our sins. And baptism is connected to faith an repentance and is a natural result of the movement toward remission of sins. If we understand enough to have faith in Christ as the son of God. If we understand enough to repent of our sins for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness then it is not very hard to see that it is quite natural for such a one to easily understand that baptism is as much for the remission of sins as is repentance. And one cannot be ignorant of the purpose of the one without being ignorant of the purpose of the other. If one cannot be forgiven by repenting without understanding the purpose for which he is repenting thenhe also cannot be forgiven by being baptized without understanding the purpose of it. And Acts 2:38 marries repentance and baptism together and tells us that they are both for the same purpose and it is not difficult in the least to understand it. And none will be excused for failing to understand it either. And those who think that they will need to show us where God promises to excuse ignorance. For we are told, “at the times of ignorance God winked at by now comanndeth all men every where to repent.” (Acts 17:30). God is not winking at ignorance any more. We are told, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45). And for that reason Christ said, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father son and the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have comanded you”. (Matt. 28:19,20). If understanding the will of God were not essential to obtaining forgiveness of our sins and reconciliation to God then we would not be commanded to teach the gospel at all. For it would not be necessary if understanding was not important. But the fact is that we are expected to understand and be “taught of God” through the preaching of his word before we can come to him. “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. 1:21). Now since God chose to use this method of saving people it means that he chose a method that requires teaching and teaching inescabaly7 requires understanding the will of God. No one con come to God in ignorance of God’s will and that is a fact. And none can remain faithful to God without daily seeking to know, understand and obey God’s will. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is].” (Eph. 5:18). And “For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;” (Col. 1:19). Thus we see that Christianity begins with understanding the will of God and it continues with the understanding of God’s will.

I will discuss this in more detail when I have time but I just wanted to say amen to your words. Brother Demastus may have a good example in referring to marriage but it is not quite parallel as anyone can see. For in a marriage we are seeking a relationship that has not been broken. But in coming to Christ we are seeking the forgiveness of sins and RECONCILIATION with God in a relationship that has for a long time been broken because of sin. And God and man cannot be reconciled until the matter of forgiveness of sins is resolved. And in seeking to be reconciled with God we cannot do so if we fail to understand that sin has broken that relationship with Him. And the conditions, which God has placed upon us before he will grant us a pardon or forgive us and accept us, back into his presence. And all of those conditions must be understood. We must believe in Christ (John 3:16). Can we fail to understand the purpose of faith in Christ and still be saved? WE must confess Christ (Romans 10:10; Matt. 10:32) are we to believe that we can confess Christ without UNDERSTANDING THAT HE IS GOD’S SON? We are to Repent of our sins that they might be blotted out (Acts 3:19). Are we to understand what we are repenting of? Indeed we cannot repent without understanding the purpose of our repentance. And then we are to be baptized for the remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38). If one understands faith, confession of Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sin, can he then just fail to understand that baptism is for the remission of sins and all is well? Surely Not!

It seems that a more fitting example might be found in the reconciliation of an estranged couple who were married but because of sins against each other have been separated and are now seeking to be reconciled with one another. Such reconciliation requires quite a bit of understanding of what you are doing and why you are doing it. But I really recommend that we search the scriptures for illustrations that God has provided for it is His will, His word, and His truth that we are trying to understand. Thus it seems to me that we should exhaust the supply of His illustrations found in His word before we set out to find some of our own.

Paul, in reference to the baptism of the Romans, which he was discussing in chapter 6 of that book, says:

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 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 6:16-18)

Notice that they OBEYED FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine that was delivered to them. And that form of doctrine to which he refers is found in Romans 6:3-6. Which was their being buried with Christ in baptism. They obeyed that form of doctrine from the heart and were THEN made free from sin. To obey from the heart is to obey from the understanding. And those who obey without understanding are obeying without the heart. And Paul said they were made free from sin when they obeyed that form of doctrine, which was baptism FROM THE HEART or with the understanding and not without it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

E. Lee,

You have got to be about the most arrogant person I've ever come across. God was able to use Balaam's ass, perhaps He'll be able to use you too. Who knows?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Still praying for E.Lee's enlightenment and salvation.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Mr. Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, You have got to be about the most arrogant person I've ever come across.”

Now every person who reads this form has a right to their perception of the persons who write in the forum and none of us would take that right from them. The above is you perception of me and I have not doubt but that I must have said something to leave you with that impression. But before anyone can conclude that your perception of me is the truth they would need to have some evidence. Your mere assertion of your perception of me is not sufficient to cause others to believe you. Your statement does not convince me that you can prove it to be true.

But, in an effort to demonstrate to us that you are not as arrogant as you perceive me and at the same time, it seems, to insult me as well you have said:

“ God was able to use Balaam's ass, perhaps He'll be able to use you too. Who knows?”

Now, this statement sounds like a polite “Christian” way of calling me an “ass” and thereby was designed to insult me. But honestly I see it as a complement. In fact, from my reading of the story of Balaam’s ass it does indeed appear that this stubborn mule was the “hero” in the story. In fact, we ought to pray that God would bless all of us with an “ass” like Balaam’s so that we can be saved from God’s intent to destroy us when we sin against him. For the benefit of our readers I will now quote the entire story of Balaam’s ass so that we can see if it is a bad thing to be like Balaam’s Ass.

“And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall [being] on this side, and a wall on that side. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where [was] no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, [Am] not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since [I was] thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me: And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.” (Numbers 22:21-34).

Now notice a few things Brethren.

1. Balaam’s Ass saw something that Balaam did not see, didn’t he? 2. Balaam’s Ass tried to prevent his Master from going into danger, Didn’t he? 3. Balaam’s Ass was Stubborn about the matter, wasn’t he? 4. Balaam’s opinion of the Ass was not a favorable one, now was it? 5. Even though the Ass was beaten with a rod three times he still refused to allow his master to walk into certain death, now didn’t he? 6. Balaam’s Ass was taking these actions which his master did not like by his own intelligence. In fact, it does appear that this Ass was more loyal and faithful to his master than Balaam was to his, now wasn’t he? 7. And Balaam refused to even think that the Ass was doing the right thing because of his typical human prejudice that because he was nothing but an ass he could not known what he was doing. When in fact it was Balaam who did not know what he was doing. 8. When Balaam’s ass spoke he reminded Balaam of his faithful service to him and asked him if he had ever behaved this way before and then is when the Lord allowed Balaam to see what the ass had seen al along. 9. And even though the Ass spoke in human language to him he still felt like killing him. Do we see any parallels here? I have no doubt but that some would like to kill those who speak the truth to them. DO you? 10. And Balaam’s Ass is the only Mule in the history of the world that ever spoke a word in any language, now isn’t he? So that would probably place him above all "Asses" that ever lived, would it? 11. Now notice that God did not use the ass to save Balaam’s life. There is nothing in the record that says, “God used” Balaam’s ass for any purpose. This ass saved Balaam because he saw danger. And if this ass had chosen to just go forward ignoring the danger God would have killed Balaam. God allowed Balaam's ass to speak in to Balaam so that he would see the truth and turn from his perverse way. But if Balaam had continues on foot he would have been killed. The only time in this record that God used the ass was when he allowed the ass to speak a language. But Balaam’s life was saved by the ass long before God began to “use him” in any way, wasn’t he? 12. But look a Balaam’s opinion of his ass: “and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.” (Numbers 22:29).

Now Compare Balaam’s opinion to God’s commendation of the ass, “And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me: And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.” There is indeed often a large difference between God’s “perspective” and Man’s opinion, isn’t there?

In other words this man’s way was “perverse” before the Lord. And he would have been killed except for the actions of this Ass. Who is recorded forever in the divine volume of God’s word as a perpetual example of how we must behave when we are trying to save those whom we know are walking blindly into certain death at the hand of God.

Let us pray that God will give every person an ASS like Balaam’s! And I thank Mr. Davis for the complement though I fear that I may not be worthy of it.

For Christ and those seeking to save men from their perverse ways before the Lord,

E. Lee Saffold (hereafter known as “Balaam’s Ass)

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Just guessing....but my guess is Connie....E. Lee would rather you NOT pray for him.”

You are right in what you say. I do not mind if Connie wishes to was her time with praying contrary to the will of God that God would saves us in the way she wants then to be saved. For she wants us to be saved by “faith only” apart from obedience to the gospel. And no matter how often she makes this request for God to work contrary to his revealed "will". He will never answer her in the affirmative. For God does not serve Connie and unfortunately she does not serve God but seeks to pervert all of His ways.

I am not one of those who just asks anyone and every one to pray for me. If I were seeking someone to pray for me I would find a Christian that prays according rather than contrary to the will of God. For only those prayers that are in harmony with the will of God will be heard.

“And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (1 John 5:14-16).

Thus we see that anyone who prays contrary to God’s "will" shall not be heard and there are certain things that we should not pray for. Connie does not know what she should and should not pray for and when she prays she prays contrary to the will and truth of God. No one would want the prayers of one who cares more about her own will than she does about the will of God.

And Connie is not really praying for me. What she is doing is making a hypocritical display before the readers of this forum of how she is praying for me. And she is using her prayers as a means of making arguments against the truth. This behavior is a hypocritical abuse of prayer. And you are correct in stating that I would indeed prefer that Connie would not abuse something as holy as prayer in this way for my sake.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brethren:

Please forgive my error that I have made above in speaking of Balaam's ass. I referred to this noble beast with the pronouns "he" and "His" when in fact the Lord referred to the Ass with the accurate pronouns "her" and "she". This noble female ass who saved Balaam's life with her stubborness is to be honored for her actions perpetually. And we should not fail to notice her "gender". It may seem to be a small error but I believe it is an important fact that God has revealed in His word and it should not go unnoticed nor misstated.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Dearest Heavenly Father,

May you indwell E.Lee with your Holy Spirit, so that he can know the blessedness of Life in You. May you break down the hardness of his will and heart and make hime tender toward You, Jesus, and Your Holy Spirit of Life.

May he come to know and love you as much as he knows and loves the precepts of the Restoration Movement. (Although the founders of that movement had a better understanding of the Word than E.Lee does).

May he be freed from his denominationalism and become responsive to your Holy Word. May he learn to Love the Lord God with all his heart, mind, and soul, and his neighbor as himself, the only two commandments You saw fit to repeat in the New Testament.

In Your Precious and Holy Name,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

From another CC/CoC/RM forum:

You think you understand grace but you're blind to grace my friend. I understand though...there was a time in my walk with Christ that I was where you are.

I had all the answers plus ten scriptures that would take the smile off any Baptist face. Discovering grace is like flipping on a switch in a dark room. Ahhhh...I see!

FredG said>>>I am not in the habit of reading commentaries that much and when I do, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Campbell's opinion carries just as much weight as any other and has the same authority. If he was on this list, I would write the same things I do now. Is he your authority for what you believe? I certainly hope not.

FredP>>>Nope Thomas Campbell is not my authority. But he blazed a path for us. I wonder, since he holds such a different view than you, would you allow him to speak to the people you minister to? Or for that matter would you allow the following men the privilege to speak in your congregation?

Barton Stone

"I see no authority in the Scriptures as to why we should draw the conclusion, that the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, is withdrawn from the church."

Alexander Campbell

"We, as a denomination are as desirous as ever to unite and cooperate with all Christians on the broad and vital principles of the New and everlasting Covenant."

"It is the image of Christ the Christian looks to and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known."

"But who is a Christian? Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sin, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will."

"I cannot make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion."

"In our furious zeal for orthodoxy, we have made baptism a savior, or a passport to heaven, disparaging all private and social virtues of the professing public."

"We do not suppose all unimmersed persons to be absolute aliens from the family of God--nor are they absolutely excluded from any participation with us in prayer or in the Lord's Supper."

"All the good and virtuous in all sects belong to Jesus Christ; and if I belong to him, they are my brethren"

Thomas Campbell

You may possibly infer from these remarks that I make immersion essential to salvation. By no means: for mistakes in such cases are pardonable. God judges people on the basis of the available light they possess."

"That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Robert Richardson

"Let the Bible be our spiritual library; but let the gospel be our standard of orthodoxy."

"Christ is not a doctrine but a person."

"People may possess the same faith, while they differ greatly in the amount and accuracy of their religious knowledge."

David Lipscomb

"When I hear of a church setting out to build a fine building, I give that church up. It's usefulness as a church of Christ is at an end." Concerning preacher salaries: "The preacher will cater to his supporters."

Moses E.Lard

"Phoebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word...whenever the necessities of the churches are such as to demand it, the order of the deaconess should be reestablished."

W.K. Pendelton

"It is generally regarded among our brethren, as an essential element in the restoration of the primitive order, to ordain, in every church, both deacons and deaconesses."

T.B. Larimore

"I propose never to stand identified with one special wing, branch, or party of the church. My aim is to preach the gospel, do the work of an evangelist, and teach God's children how to live."

G.C. Brewer

"Christians have made the gospel a system of divine laws for human beings to obey and thus save themselves sans grace, sans mercy, sans everything spiritual and divine--except the plan was in mercy given."

"To trust a plan is to expect to save yourself by your own good works. It is to build according to a blueprint; and if you meet the specifications your building will be approved by the great Inspector. Otherwise you fail to measure up and you are lost. That is wrong, brethren! We have a Savior who saves us. We throw ourselves upon his mercy, put our case in his hands, and submit gladly and humbly to his will. That is our hope and our only hope"

K.C. Moser

"If we are saved by a plan, does this make the plan our savior? Is there life in a plan? Is a plan redemptive? Jesus thought that he died to save sinners. If he died to give us a plan by which to be saved, then it is not his death by which we are saved, but the plan given by reason of his death.

"What this sinful world needs is not plans and schemes but Christ.

When Christ crucified is not preached, one should not preach at all."

Charles Loos   (A Restoration forefather and teacher at Bethany College)

"Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ. We are not converted to doctrines, but to God...We are not baptized into doctrines, but into Christ. We do not hope in them, trust in them, glory in them, but in Jesus Christ our Lord."

John T. Johnson   (In a letter to Alexander Campbell, 1849)

"Were it not for the preachers, Christians would unite upon the Bible alone in less than one year, in my judgment."

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

Respectfully (for the above opinions),

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Connie,

I hope that you realize that the statements and opinions of Danny and E. Lee are hardly in the majority among the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. I would estimate less than 5% hold to their extreme legalism and sectarian ways.

The quotes you posted are a true representation of our heritage and much more closely resemble the views of most within our movement today.

I'm sorry you've had to be exposed to this legalistic nonsense. Reminds me of the Galatians....

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brethren:

Mr. Davis pretends to speak for the entire church most of which he knows nothing about. And he misrepresent entirely not only the truth of God’s word but the truth as taught by these faithful Gospel preachers whom Connie quoted out of context. And the quotations from Brother Campbell are taken from periods in his life as he was developing greater understanding of the truth. His repudiation of denominationalism is one of those things that developed gradually for him. And They do not take into account the fact that he changed his position as more truth came to light for him. And they both ignore that we care not what any man says but rather what God says. Even if any man that we all respect were to teach that which is contrary to the word of God we would oppose his teachings as adamantly as any others who teach false doctrines among the sectarians. Nevertheless his words were as follows:

“Connie, I hope that you realize that the statements and opinions of Danny and E. Lee are hardly in the majority among the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.”

He could not prove this statement to save his life! He has not done any survey of all of the churches among us in the entire world and therefore has no just basis for his assertions, now does he. And he also does not recognize the fact that even if his unproven assertion were true it would be meaningless in establishing the truth of God’s word on these issues. For the truth from God is not “developed” by men but rather revealed by God. And majorities do not ever determine truth. In fact, the truth is usually not found or held by the majority of people. Christ said, straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life and FEW there be that find it.” So, Mr. Davis cannot prove his assertions and even if he did they would be meaningless to those concerned with knowing the truth. If you want to know the truth compare what is being taught not only by Danny Gabbard and E. Lee Saffold but Connie and Barry Davis as well with the teachings of those inspired men found in the word of God as see if they are teaching the truth. For there is not other way for the truth to be found and determined but by appealing to the testimony of God given by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven and not by the majority opinions of any group of men any where in this world.

This is an example of this very situation in the scriptures. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said; Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:13-15) One can easily see that there were various human opinions among men concerning the identity of Christ. And upon asking His disciples whom did men say that he was. They gave him a list of the various opinions, all of which were WRONG. And he did not then say to them, “tell me which opinion is the “majority view” as Mr. Davis is trying to do in this post, now did he. Then he said, “whom do ye say that I am? And Simon Peter gave the correct answer when he said, “thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God”. And then Christ told him where he had received this knowledge. God revealed it to him. The truth in this case, as in all cases is determined by the revelation of God’s word. And that has never changed. Therefore we tell both Connie and Mr. Davis. If you wish to persuade us that the things you teach are the truth of God then you must do so by appealing to what God has revealed to us in his word. Telling us what the various opinions of men are and what the “majority view” among them is will be of no help whatsoever, now will it?

But Mr. Davis goes on to “estimate” the extent or number of those who would agree with what he claims but does not prove is our “legalism and sectarian ways” as follows:

“ I would estimate less than 5% hold to their extreme legalism and sectarian ways.”

Now, just here Mr. Davis does not make any effort whatsoever to prove that Brother Danny and E. Lee Saffold’s ways are in fact legalistic and sectarian now does he. He merely assumes it and asserts it and that is supposed to be sufficient for every one! He does not need to prove it for he thinks that it is axiomatic and not in need of proof. He thinks that it is sufficient for him to merely say it and all will believe it. Well, that might work among those who cane nothing about the truth, Mr. Davis, but it will not work in this forum where most of our readers want evidence not mere assertions. And then he “estimates" that only 5% would agree with what he calls our “extreme views". He does not take the time and effort to prove that our views are extreme in the least. He again expects our readers to believe it just because Barry Smith said so. And as far as his estimation is concerned he expects us to believe that also just because he says it. For he does not tell us how he arrived at this figure nor does he show from any statistical study done by it that it is even remotely true. We are expected to believe it just because Barry Davis says so and not other reason. Well, those interested in truth will not believe it without clear evidence. And Barry Davis does not have any evidence for his assertions, now does he?

Furthermore, it is not either E. Lee Saffold’s nor Danny Gabbard’s desire that any men agree with us. We are seeking ourselves to agree with God’s word and asking others to do the same. Now, if Mr. Davis could prove that what we have taught on this subject is out of harmony with God’s word he would not have to resort to his above tactics, now would he? But he cannot do that so all he has left is to appeal to the opinions of men and show that those of us who are following the truth of God’s word are a 5% minority. Now wouldn’t that be a shame if it were true!

Then he says:

“The quotes you posted are a true representation of our heritage and much more closely resemble the views of most within our movement today.”

Now Mr. Davis does not prove this at all again he merely asserts it. And as I have shown in the beginning of this post those quotations are taken out of their context and are therefore misrepresentations of what these men taught. For some, but not all of them, are taken out of context and fail to recognize statements by some of these men who changed their views of those things later in their lives. And it fails to recognize that there was then, as there is now differences between us some of which were resolved and some, which continue to this day. But, taken as they are completely out of context and ignoring the changes made by some of these men later in life and the battle that continues on some of these matters gives a completely distorted picture of what is true among us. And Mr. Davis should know better. We can excuse Connie for she could not know better.

Then he says:

“I'm sorry you've had to be exposed to this legalistic nonsense. Reminds me of the Galatians....”

Now Mr. Davis, it would be better if you would take any of the points that we have been discussing and prove to us that any of them are “legalistic” (if you understand what that word means which I sincerely doubt). Or that they are in any way whatsoever “nonsensical” if you are going to assert that they are such and apologize for the rest of us. If you have done something wrong you can apologize for it. But if we have done something wrong you should prove that we have done so and allow us to apologize for it. All you really need to do is prove that we are wrong in what we are teaching and we will apologize profusely to Connie. But you do not have the ability, knowledge or the courage to even attempt to prove that what we are teaching is contrary to the word of God. Therefore you set out to do nothing more than feebly talk about us with assertions that you could not prove to save your life.

Then you show your ignorance of the teaching of Paul in the book of Galatians when you say that this imaginary “legalism” that you falsely charge us with is the very legalism that Paul condemned in the book of Galatians. For the same apostle Paul who condemned those who were attempting to lead the Galatians back under the LAW OF MOSES said that we are “UNDER LAW TO CHRIST” (1 Corinthians 9:21). And he made it clear that Christians are under a “Law of faith” and the “Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2). And though he told the Galatians who were in danger of going back under the Law of Moses that if they did such a thing they were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4) also told those same Galatians that they were under the “LAW OF CHRIST”. For Paul said, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2). And he also made it quite clear that the “grace of God” came “instructing us” to live life a certain way. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” (Titus 2:11,12).

So, we cannot see how that our teaching of the same thing that Paul taught could remind you of the situation that Paul was dealing with in Galatians. For we have not sought to bring anyone back into the bondage of the Law of Moses as the Judiasing teachers were doing in Galatia.

So, again, Mr. Davis, your false accusations and feeble attempts to misrepresent the truth have failed miserably. And you have not proven that one single thing we have said was “nonsense” but we have now shown numerous times that much of what you have said is just that “pure nonsense”. And we have not merely asserted it we have proved it and you have done nothing but ignore what we have said.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Connie:

I would highly recommend that you read all of the things that these men whom you quoted taught. You would learn much from them and you would find all of them very much in opposition to your false doctrine of "savation by faith only". And I do mean ALL OF THEM. I highly recommend to you MOses Lard's commentary on Romans. It is one of the very best that can be found. You can order it from the Gospel Advocate Company in Nashvile Tennesee. You can find their book store on line.

ANd You should read J. W. Mcgarvey and H. K. Pendeltons commentary on Romans. It is also among the very best. These men are scholars in every sense of the word, fair objective and very capable. But you will not find them in support of the doctrine of "salvation by faith only".

Do not allow yourself to pass along deliberate misrepresentations of the truths that these men gave their lives to teaching. It is not only unjust to them and disrespectful to their work it is propagating and perpetuating a deliberate lie.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brethren:

Being from the state of Alabama from a very early age I was greatly influenced by some of these men and their teachings though I had only heard G. C. Brewer a few times. I read much of his writings and also much of T. B. Larimore's writing. In fact, I can still quote verbatim a portion of one of T. B. Larimore's excellent sermons. It remains on of my favorites. And the quotation given from him above brings back fond memories to me. It has been my position all of my life and remains such to this day. I will therefore quote it again as follows:

"T.B. Larimore

"I propose never to stand identified with one special wing, branch, or party of the church. My aim is to preach the gospel, do the work of an evangelist, and teach God's children how to live."

I have not been and I am not now seeking to stand with "one special wing, branch, or party in the church". I am in this forum working with my brethren to teach the truth and often someone will seek to deliberately and against my will to make me appear to be "standing with one special branch, or wing, or party in the church". But I can tell you that my efforts in this forum prove otherwise. I have stated more than once that I do not belong to any denomination but often persons speak of me as belonging to one. But I have never joined any such thing in my life and never will. The same thing that made me a Christian automatically and at the very same time and by the exact same process placed me into the family of God, the body of Christ. And that is all that I belong to or ever will belong to. When a child is born he is automatically a member of the family into which he or she is born. He has no right or option to go and chose another family to "join". And those of us who have been born into the family of God are automatically members of that family and no other. To then go out and seek to join some faction in that family would be an act of rebellion against the father of the family. I do not now nor will I ever belong to any denomination on this earth. I not only have never "joined" any such thing but I adamantly denounce all such as pure rebellion against God! I defy anyone to demonstrate by any evidence they have at their disposal that E. Lee Saffold belongs to any denomination at all.

But the influence of these men mention above, along with others like Moses Lard, were all very well known in Alabama and had a great influence among us in teaching the truth of God's word to us. We love them for their works sake. But these men themselves would insist that we not believe anything just because they said it was true. But to examine all that we are taught in the light of God's holy word and prove all things and hold fast only to that which proved to be good, right, and in harmony with the will and word of God.

I know far more about these men and what they taught than those who are these days deliberately misrepresenting them in order to find some support for the false doctrines that they cannot find support for in the word of God. And I can tell you that it is painful to see their words abused in this way. But I want all to notice that no one who can find their doctrines in the word of God would everhave any need to resort to the quotations of any men at all much less to deliberately misrepresent faithful men who constantly appealed to people to turn to God's word for the truth and to even examine their own words in the light of God's word and reject them if they were found to be out of harmony with what it teaches.

Thus, if those who are perpetuating these misrepresentations could prove that thir false doctrines were taught by the word of God they would have felt no need to resort to such tactics. THe fact that they have done so only further shows the weakness which underlies the attempt. That weakness being that they cannot prove that the scriptures teach that one is saved by "faith only" in any place. And they canoot escape the truth that persons who come to Christ in obedience to the gospel must understand what they are doing.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

Now this we seek to do and urge others to do the same. But let us reason together and examine all things in the light of the word of God.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Hi Danny,

I am somewhat amazed at how much you claim to know about me, as we have never met. The fact is, some of the most "liberal" churches we have are in the State of Kentucky, even though the one I served was not. How did you become such an authority about me and my ministry? When have we met? What mutual friends might we have? etc...etc...

I would like to ask you a question on a different topic. Based on the representation you've made so far, I doubt you have the ability to actually answer, but here goes --- I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you do not believe Connie is a Christian. If that is your belief, why do you treat her so badly? This certainly does not fit the methodology of Jesus. Jesus was a friend to sinners. He reserved his tone of rebuke for the Pharisaic minded hypocrites.

Also, since you claim to have your doctrine down straight, I imagine you and the church you serve must be baptizing people left and right. How many conversions have you had in the last year? The reason I'm curious, is because most legalists claim to know a lot about doctrine, but have very little fruit in their ministries. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I've got a feeling you just do a lot of arguing, and very little real evangelism. As for E. Lee, I know he isn't doing any evangelism at all, as he spends much too much time using a lot of words that say absolutely nothing.

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Connie,

As you can see from the tone of these fellow's posts, we've struck a nerve. The original intent of the Restoration Movement was to bring unity among God's people based on the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Movement was very much anti-creedal and was made up of people from many denominations. Danny, E. Lee, and their legalistic brethren have an unwritten creed that anyone must adhere to for them to acknowledge them as their brothers or sisters in Christ. The tenets of this creed would include a lock-step agreement on baptismal regeneration (which I assure you, is not true of the majority of leaders in the Restoration Movement), a strict call to not belonging to any denomination (even though we are as much a denomination as any other group), and a few other details. This legalistic element is about as far removed from the views of the Restoration Fathers as it possibly could be. In fact, Alexander Campbell very much considered himself a Christian prior to his baptism. There is much more I could say, but that should suffice. In fact, most likely I will quit posting here soon -- "casting pearls before swine" and all that type of thing, you know?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brethren:

This is how false teachers seek to appear superior to all of us:

“As for E. Lee, I know he isn't doing any evangelism at all, as he spends much too much time using a lot of words that say absolutely nothing.”

Now, he asserts again but cannot prove that E. Lee Saffold is not doing ANY evangelism at all. Now what evidence does he have of this? Simply none whatsoever. His only reason for thinking this is that he is convinced that E. Lee Saffold spends much too much time using a lot of words that say absolutely nothing”. Well all one need do is go through this forum in all of the archives and just make an attempt to count all of the many passages of scripture that I have quoted from God’s word in my numerous post. And though he is welcome to his opinion that my words say absolutely nothing he is not welcome to imply that the hundreds of scriptures that I have quoted verbatim from the word of God “say absolutely nothing”, now does he?

I do indeed use a lot of words and whether my words say anything or not I will leave up to our readers. But one thing is for certain. Mr. Davis is completely unable to deal with any of the arguments that I have thus far made from the scriptures and all one need do is read our exchanges. He will not even talk directly to me any more. He has that much in common with the other Barry in this forum. Neither of them could answer the arguments so now they run away top the shallow end of the pool so to [peak and through things at us from what they consider a safe distance. You will notice that I have made several arguments that he has not even attempted to answer. If they said nothing all he would need to do is take them up one by one and demonstrate or prove that they are void of any serious meaning. But he has shown that he is pathetically unable to do this hasn’t he?

But even if my words were empty, the numerous quotations I have given from God’s word cannot be empty. One could argue, but Mr. Davis has no courage to argue, that the scriptures that I quoted did not support the arguments “empty words” that Mr. Davis thinks that I had spoken. But he could not state, as Mr. Davis has, that those words from God “say absolutely nothing” now can he? But he will not even attempt to deal with even what God’s words that I quoted had to say.

I have taken his every argument and responded to them. And he has done nothing to refute the things that I have said. The reason is simple. He cannot do so. And that is a fact.

How much evangelism I do is not something that it is necessary for me to attempt to demonstate to anyone in this forum. ANd this effort of men, Like Mr. Davis, who enjoy "comparing themselves with themselves" to determine what is truth. How much evangelizing someone does is not prove of whther they are teaching the truth. Mormons do a lot more of what many would call "evangelizing" but they do not teach the truth. And I can tell you that the Mromons do not do more evangelizing than the congregation of which I am a member does daily. But it is no evidence that the one out evangleizing is teaching the truth. So, if the doctrines that we see Mr. Davis teaching in this forum is representative of what he is teaching when he goes out to "evangelize" we can only praty that he does not do much of it. For those lies do not need to spread! So, even if it were true, though I do sincerely doubt if it is, that Mr. Davis doea more evangleizing" than the rest of us. It would only be meaningful if he was teaching the true gospel of Christ as he went about doing such.And if that were the case we would only thank God that he was doing more than the rest of us and be inspired by his efforts to do more ourselves. But we wopuld never, even if we could show that we are doing more than Mr. Davis, attempt to use such information as a means of trying to appear superior to him because of it. This nonsense is just an example of how pathetic men become when they have chosen to leave the truth and follow "fables".

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Barry D.

You stated of Mr. Saffold…

"You have got to be about the most arrogant person I've ever come across."

As a visitor here and having attempted to carry on a discussion of ideas, he has continually reverted to personal attacks….he must live by the philosophy, if you cannot argue the message attack the messenger. Since he has failed to obey the gospel I find that he is really no Christian at all and have on many occasions extended to him good will and Christian love. I have concluded he is not interested in dialogue and have deemed his posts an utter waste of time. I have enjoyed reading your posts as well as a number of others on this forum.

Danny,

You "prayed"????

"Dear Lord....

Please remove the legion of idiot demons that have filled Connie's mind."

A couple questions, can you show me a Scripture a reference to "idiot demons"? If you were being sarcastic, can you explain why you would do such a thing in the Lords name????

Could it be you simply feel Connie is not sincere? If so, why do you just state so instead of displaying such a lack of self control? I have never met you, but from previous posts I have read of yours think that we would probably get along if we did. I lived in WV and Iowa for close to 9 years and knew many hunters and gained a profound respect for the Constitution where it says that we as citizens should be able to bear arms. However, as we would agree on many different levels I am saddened when I read this type of post, I believe you are above this.

Connie,

You posted some very enlightening material, indeed!!!

""But who is a Christian? Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sin, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will." Thomas Campbell

To read the opinions of some on this forum you would never have thought they and Campbell are part of the same denomination! In fact the quotes from this man Campbell sound very logical and compassionate.

To All:

It is discouraging to continue to hear this phrase "faith only" continually being thrown about. It is as silly to misrepresent the truth of this matter as it would be for us to continue to misrepresent your position that you claim we are saved by water or good works.

As always it has been stated we are saved by grace through faith. It has been my observation that those who continually misrepresent the truth of this matter it is because they are unable to deal with the truth and must deliberately misstate the facts in an attempt to discredit. Which obviously has no place in a dialogue amongst "adults" I have therefore discontinued conversation with such persons who cannot conduct themselves as adult. Once the deliberate dissimilation of outright falsehoods is discontinued and persons can conduct themselves with Christian character the dialogue will continue.

Yet again for the record let it be shown we do not believe….

Faith = Redemption + good works (as this would be faith only) what we do believe ….

Grace + Faith = Redemption + good works (as anyone can see this is not "faith only")

I ask that all further statements reflect the truth henceforth.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

I re-post to comment:

As per Connie....as someone said....in essense....don't jump into the middle of something you have no knowledge of. Connie's only purpose for being here is to cause dissension. People have tried the sweet, sugar coated, milktoast approach with her....to know avail. Therefore, I treat her like the word says to treat those who cause dissension.

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

I am trying to remember a single sweet, sugarcoated, milktoast approach from anyone on this forum. I would have welcomed it.

I appeciated the Godly responses of Philip Watkinson, Benjamin, John, AKelley, Link, Dr. Jon, and others. Even when they disagreed with me, which they did.

Mark W. called me a liar and satanic within a few days, and you and E.Lee echoed that opinion very shortly afterwards. NOT BECAUSE I WAS CLAIMING THE BIBLE TO BE FICTION AND CHRIST AN IMPOSTER!!! No, I believe He is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and I beleive the 'Autograph languages' to be breathed-on by God, imparting to their writers an authority only God can bestow. Unfortunately, I know that we only have copies of copies.

It was because I do not worship the RM and because I consider the re- birth of the Spirit to be superior to the one in water. There is only One. Will you throw out Spiritual Regeneration and keep water baptism? I won't.

It is another Gospel which prefers water baptism over the birth of the Spirit from above.

Respectfully, with difficulty,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Brethren:

And yet another liar has joined the chorus of liars in this thread. Mr. Hanson has now arrived on the scene with yet another attempt to deny that he ever taught “salvation by faith only” so again we must quote now for the fifth time where he actually taught this nonsense which he now claims he never taught.

But his words were:

“To All: “It is discouraging to continue to hear this phrase "faith only" continually being thrown about. It is as silly to misrepresent the truth of this matter as it would be for us to continue to misrepresent your position that you claim we are saved by water or good works.”

If you do not like that Phrase Mr. Hanson then why do you not admit that you taught the doctrine, have been convinced that it is false, and repent of having taught it and stop teaching it? You lie again and that we have proven now five times and you have never responded to it but we will do it yet one more time.

For you have said:

“As always it has been stated we are saved by grace through faith.”

Now that is not true. At the end of this post we will again quote your very words wherein you said that we are saved by “believing alone”. Now in saying that you most certainly did not say we are “saved by grace through faith” which means that it has not “ALWAYS” been stated that way now doesn’t it?

Then you again lie:

“ It has been my observation that those who continually misrepresent the truth of this matter it is because they are unable to deal with the truth and must deliberately misstate the facts in an attempt to discredit.”

No, Mr. Hanson that is your tactic not ours.

Then he says falsely:

“Which obviously has no place in a dialogue amongst "adults" I have therefore discontinued conversation with such persons who cannot conduct themselves as adult. Once the deliberate dissimilation of outright falsehoods is discontinued and persons can conduct themselves with Christian character the dialogue will continue.”

You left the dialogue, Mr. Hanson because you cannot answer the arguments, and that is obvious to all that read this forum. But as to “dissimulation of falsehoods” no one has said anything falsely about you. All that we have said concerning your teaching of this nonsense of salvation by Faith only we have proven by quoting your own words and you have never once answered it, now have you? And the reason that you have not answered it is simply because you cannot do so.

But now, to demonstrate that we have told the truth about your teaching salvation by faith only we will again quote your exact words as follows:

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

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.”

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

Now Brethren anyone can see that Mr. Hanson’s above statement which he denies having every made but we have quoted verbatim from his own words is teaching salvation by “faith only”. SO, Mr. Hanson, for the fifth time now, we have given irrefutable proof that you are a deliberate liar. And because of that fact we agree with you when you ask:

“I ask that all further statements reflect the truth henceforth.”

Indeed we ask that you speak the truth henceforth instead of lying as you have about your teaching salvation by “faith only”. It is time for you to come clean with the truth and admit that you did teach “salvation by faith only” in the above quotation from your own words. And that you no longer believe salvation is by “faith only” and make the appropriate corrections and repent for having lied about it and then “henceforth” speak the truth and you will have no – problems from us. But to claim that you are interested in the truth when you have been caught in a deliberate lie and continue to lie about it is nothing more than your continued pathetic hypocritical attempts to deceive. There is nothing childish about demanding the truth from you! And we demand it or we will continue at every opportunity point to your lies for all to see.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Give it up Connie..........your whinning is really getting old.

I didn't call you a liar or a satanic.

I merely pointed out that the Gideons, according to their addition in the back of the Bibles they pass out, offer the sinner's prayer as the way to salvation, while totally ignoring Baptism........somehow you were too blind to see that. If that makes your a liar (your words, not mine), then that's your fault, not mine.

Now of course, as has been shown a MULTITUDE of times here, false doctrine is of Satan, therefore if you adhere to the false "Faith Only" doctrine.........what is the implication? Again, that's your decision to be wrong.....not mine.

But then again, why would you care what I say.........you have already (a MULTITUDE of times) stated that I'm going straight to Hell - a call that can be made ONLY by the LORD Jesus Christ Himself. SO, once again, who have you set yourself up as?......Hhhmmmmmm, let's see.......Pharoah & Caesar both set themselves up as gods............All Hail the god Connie.......Ruler of La.La Land !

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Barry Davis,

You say: "Hi, I have had people from over 18 different denominations join our church in the last two years. If they are unimmersed (we have tons of Lutherans and Catholics up here) we immerse them. If they have been immersed and I ask them "why were you baptized?", without fail they answer "out of obedience". That's good enough for me, and more importantly, I'm sure it's good enough for God."

Why do you place MORE IMPORTANCE upon the mode of baptism than in the reasons for baptism? If it does not matter that I understand anything about baptism, than it stands to reason that the mode is not important either, why do I need to understand how to be baptized? Catholics and Lutherans believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and yet you will not accept their baptism. Others do not believe baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and yet you accept their baptism. The mode and the reasons have equal standing. Why according to you must I understand that baptism is immersion?

If I say to you that I believe Jesus to be God's Son, but do not believe He was sent to save me from my sins? Would you consider me saved?

Then why would I be able to say to you I believe in baptism, but do not believe baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Barry Hanson,

You say: "I was born again at 6 years old. At 8 I heard that Jesus wanted us to be water baptized - so in obedience to His will I was water baptized." and "That is the Scriptural and most logical reason to be water baptized IMHO."

You were not born again by believing only. John 3 says you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Would you please post scripture that says that the REASON we are baptized is to obey? Of course we are to obey God's commands, He says if you love me you will keep my commandments. Can you go to the word and quote verses that state the reasons why we are to be baptized?

Your comment: "It wasn't until a year and a half ago I had ever heard about this new doctrine of having to be water baptized to be redeemed." This is no new doctrine, Christ himself stated while here on earth…He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

"Amazing, if I actually believed this, I have been without Christ for the past 27 years!"

Yes, amazing isn't it. I was there too. Please, please let’s look together again. You believe that when God connects faith with salvation that that is true. He also connects repentance (acts 3:19), confession (Rom. 10:9-10), and baptism (acts 22:16) with salvation.

Don't let the years you have believed a teaching rule whether or not it is true, let God's Word rule weather it is true or not.

Barry, could you please post your last name to cut down on some of the confusion.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Barry Hanson, You say: "I was born again at 6 years old. At 8 I heard that Jesus wanted us to be water baptized - so in obedience to His will I was water baptized." and "That is the Scriptural and most logical reason to be water baptized IMHO."

You were not born again by believing only. John 3 says one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

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

The Greek words mean 'physically born' (gennoah) and 'borne from above by the Spirit'. (pneuma).

No baptism.

So the one we cannot do without is the one by the Spirit, from above. The SPIRITUAL REGENERATION. Of course, the physical birth is understood. We cannot be 'born again' unless we were born the first time.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

John,

The reasons we are baptized are NOT merely obedience…can you show me where the Bible says be baptized to be obedient? As I said earlier, of course we are to follow God's commands and should be obedient, but simply being obedient is not a reason God has given for being baptized. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; I Peter 3:21; Rom. 6).

Baptism is a part of our salvation and DOES NOT COME AFTER salvation. If I believe I am already saved, having had my sins forgiven BEFORE I am baptized, then I have NO concept at all of the salvation process. What am I being saved from? Sin? How can I be saved from sin BEFORE those sins are forgiven in baptism??

I ask you, is one who is sprinkled or poured saved? Why or why not?

You say: "Is this argument, from two sides who agree at least that baptism is an ordination of Christ's which we are in good conscience to submit to, much ado about nothing? Can we pronounce anathemas one side to another on this issue, when the Bible says, "the soul that IS baptized shall be saved", regardless of where they fall on where baptism fits into the whole salvation process?"

Much ado about nothing? Come on John - you know we are arguing for the very eternal life of these folks! The soul that does not believe in the God given reasons for baptism is not saved. They are leaving baptism OUT of the WHOLE SALVATION PROCESS. God does not save us because we are ignorant.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Barry Davis,

You say: "Also, since you claim to have your doctrine down straight, I imagine you and the church you serve must be baptizing people left and right. How many conversions have you had in the last year? The reason I'm curious, is because most legalists claim to know a lot about doctrine, but have very little fruit in their ministries. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I've got a feeling you just do a lot of arguing, and very little real evangelism. As for E. Lee, I know he isn't doing any evangelism at all, as he spends much too much time using a lot of words that say absolutely nothing." In my understanding of what you have stated, you would have accused Noah of being a legalist claiming to know a lot about doctrine, but with very little fruit in his ministry. Wow…he must have been definitely that…he preached for 120 years and except for his immediate family and their wives, did not convert a single person in all of that time. Think of it…120 years, preaching to a world that not a one of repented. According to your logic, Noah was a great failure, no fruit to speak of there.

You know nothing about what E. Lee is doing in the area of evangelizing. You would though if you would read his posts. It is plain to see how much evangelizing he is doing.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Add Barry Davis to the list of those who have left in disgust. The LO-O-N-G list.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie,

You have said, "The Greek words mean 'physically born' (gennoah) and 'borne from above by the Spirit'. (pneuma).

No baptism.

So the one we cannot do without is the one by the Spirit, from above. The SPIRITUAL REGENERATION. Of course, the physical birth is understood. We cannot be 'born again' unless we were born the first time. "

I am glad to see that you believe that "born of water" refers to physical birth. Many, as of late, put forth that it means "water baptism" and that "born of the Spirit" is some kind of 'Spirit baptism'.... This way they can try to prove the existence of two baptisms. Since there is only one baptism, and "born of water" refers to physical birth, would you entertain the possibility that "born of the Spirit" IS water baptism... the point that our sins are forgiven, we are a new creature (re-born), and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit??

I find it interesting that right after this discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, the following verses are included: 22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

Baptism... plenty of water needed! :-)

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Brethren:

Connie wants to add Barry Davis to an imaginary list that doesn’t exist as follows:

“Add Barry Davis to the list of those who have left in disgust. The LO-O-N-G list.”

I would simply say that if we were keeping a list of false teachers who have come into this forum hoping to have an easy time of deceiving our readers into believing their nonsense and their doctrines that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ and have left in disgust. It would indeed be long. For they have been surprised to meet such unexpected strong resistance to their doctrines, which are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Resistance that they cannot overcome and arguments that make it difficult for them to quibble and lie without being caught. Thus they leave because they cannot answer the arguments that have been put to them. And because they cannot lie and still be treated with the respect to which they are accustomed among those who are too cowardly to face them, expose their lies and demand an accounting from them for having told such lies. Some of them have even stuck their head back in hoping that the resistance to their lies has weakened only to find, to their frustration, that it is remained as strong as ever and is increasing in strength.

If we had such a list it would indeed be quite long. And there is no doubt that we could now add our friend Barry Davis to such a list if we were keeping one. For it is evident to our readers that these false teachers just cannot handle the controversy and they eventually run from the truth because they do not love it and cannot face it. They just cannot “handle the truth”. And we see the working of God’s promise to us. He says “resist the Devil and he will flee from you”. Brethren, you have been able to witness the many times that Satan’s servants have entered this forum and met the resistance they should always meet when they attack the saints of God. And you have now seen him “flee from you” now many times.

With this I encourage all to continue to study God’s word, remain faithful to it, obey it. Remain “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27) and determined to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and the devil will, as you have witnessed here before your own eyes, FLEE FROM YOU. Our Lord himself was tempted by Satan’s lies and with each temptation he countered Satan with the word of God. And He quoted that wonderful true statement from God’s word in Deuteronomy 8:2 which we must never forget. “Man shall not live by bread alone but by ever word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matt. 4:1-4).

We have resisted Satan on every occasion of his constant attacks upon the truth of God. He will return and he will be resisted yet again and again and again until our Lord returns. Indeed if there were a list being kept it would be long. And indeed these false teachers have left in disgust and brethren, I say to you, shall it ever so be the case! When Satan flees from us he flees in disgust. But do not be deceived. He will never stop trying. So let us determine that we will never stop resisting him with God’s word.

We have witnessed numerous and varied tactics and the repetition of them used by those who oppose the truth of God. And I cannot say we have seen all of them but when they are all reduced to what they really mean they boil down to that which John described after his long years of resisting Satan. “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” (1 John 2:16).

And we have seen the constant repeat of Satan’s old tactic, which he used with our Mother Eve of questioning if God really meant what he said. Do notice how many times we have heard the old refrain, “hath God said…?”. We will hear it again and again for it is one of Satan’s favorite weapons. But let us ever answer with “GOD HAS SAID…” and he will continue to go away in “disgust”.

And the following passage refers to those, like Barry Davis, who went out from us because he was not of us as follows:

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19).

Another good reason that we should come together and determine how to “mark” these men who “cause divisions and offenses” contrary to the doctrine of Christ and obey God’s command to “avoid” them that they may be ashamed and hopefully return to the truth.

Hear John, the apostle of Love:

“I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” (1 (1 John 2:21).

Therefore Brethren I remind us of what the beloved apostle Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.” (Acts 20:28-32).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

D Muse,

So sorry, I will make sure to sign with my full name.

To answer your enquiry … "Would you please post scripture that says that the REASON we are baptized is to obey?"

Matthew 28:18-20

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Jesus specifically states that we should teach them to observe or obey. Therefore as I was taught Jesus' command for water baptism I obeyed - per Matthew 28.

D Muse, the point is I have not been without Christ for the past 27 years. I have been engaged in some very exciting and supernatural ministries over the past 11 years - since entering full time ministry. I have witnessed thousands believing on Christ as they did in the New Testament upon seeing the lame walk and the blind see. Jesus has been my best friend for 27 years, He has been faithful and I praise Him everyday for His overwhelming favor in my life!

If you are really interested I can go through each reference you posted to show you a reasonable explanation you may or may not have looked at. I have discovered that most on this forum are not interested.

You stated…

"Don't let the years you have believed a teaching rule whether or not it is true, let God's Word rule weather it is true or not."

Upon reflection of this statement I do not ever recall being taught that water baptism doesn't save, only that it is a figure (1 Pt.3:21). Only until about a year and a half ago did I ever hear that my own work of water baptism saves me along with a multitude of other conditions. Since I have spent much time studying the Scriptures to try and reconcile God's free gift with this new message of salvation by works and have found them diametrically opposed.

Either it is free or it is earned - it cannot be both.

Romans 4:4

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

I have decided to believe that Christ completed the work, His finished work is wholly sufficient to save, and any attempt on my part to add to this is an utter waste of my time and really an insult to the Grace of God. That is my conclusion after the last year and a half of witnessing the type of character this message produces. IMHO those who consider themselves saved by the merit of their own obedience have been the most condescending, self righteous, arrogant, and proud individuals I have ever met. This is an observation of those I personally have met from the Boston Church of Christ, those who have split from that church and have started their own little sect (in the next town) and those on this and similar forums. I have been unable to find the character of Christ manifested in love or compassion, only a head full of their own ideas that only lead to debate, arguments and silly accusation. If this were the Church Christ left for the world it would not be considered "good news" but the same old news you could pick up from any world religion today.

It is quite plain to me what the Scriptures teach, Ephesians 2:8,9

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

The "formula" is very simple and extremely good news for those caught in a works based world religion and they are many.

Grace + Faith = Redemption + good works.

D Muse, please notice carefully that good works are never disregarded or even forgotten but placed with in the proper perspective. Because Christ loved me, I love Him and obey Him. It cannot be any other way. For God to require that we appease Him before He will love us is not even Biblical. As James put it, I will show you my faith by my works. Works follow faith.

Sorry I did not mean to go on so long.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

D Muse,

After responding to your message, I read what you wrote to John.

"How can I be saved from sin BEFORE those sins are forgiven in baptism??"

D Muse, this is the fundamental difference between our two gospels, you believe sins are forgiven when we work, I believe sins are forgiven when Christ worked. Colossians 2:13-15

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

God, forgave my trespasses and took it out of the way at the cross, not at my water baptism. Therefore I am redeemed from sin the moment I believe what Christ has already done. It is all about Christ nothing to do with my own works. When was I quickened together with Him? When was I forgiven of my trespasses? When were the handwriting of ordinances against me blotted out and taken out of the way? At the cross!

It is by the Grace of God when I believe what Christ has already done this for me am I born again! After I am a disciple I am taught to obey all of His commandments, one of which is water baptism.

D Muse, it is not even logical to think that an unbeliever is going to desire to obey the commands of Christ. The Scriptures clearly state that outside of Christ no one is remotely interested in doing good - how do you expect a complete non-believer to be water baptized? It is not even logical.

Romans 3:10-12

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

D Muse, also to answer your point about John 3, let us look at verse six…

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus said, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Where does it say, that which is born of the water and of the Spirit is spirit???

Verses 5 and 6 say…

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus said we need to be born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God and that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So, I was born physically the first time of water and born again of the Spirit. Again where do you see Jesus teaching that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of water and of the Spirit is spirit? I cannot find this anywhere.

I also believe confusion exists between the concepts of redemption and salvation. Redemption is a one time event while salvation is a process. I am redeemed when I believe and then I begin to walk out that salvation granted to me at redemption.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

E Lee wrote,

>>For you assumed quite incorrectly that if you could just mention that the author of this unknown book was one who did not use instruments of music in his worship to God. That you could thereby prejudice our readers against what he was teaching without having to go to the trouble of mentioning his arguments and living an answer to them.<<

This is just rediculous. There you go pretending to know the motives of someone else's heart. You sure come off as defensive and a little bit paranoid.

There is not reason to get from the initial comments in this thread that the poster was trying to prejudice the readers. In fact, it makes perfect sense that he would identify the source. Like it or not, instrumental worship is one of hte most well-known differences in doctrine and practice that is commonly observed between churches with 'Christian Church' on the sign of their building and those with 'Church of Christ' on the sign of their building. Since this forum has 'Christian Church' in the name, then it was natural for the poster to point out that the author whose view he read was from a slightly different theological background.

There is no reason to read a conspiracy theory into that post. I know you say you don't have the Holy Spirit. You should pray to receive the Holy Spirit. If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall the father in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Paul wrote that we have not received the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. You could use a sound mind judging from the way you read unfounded ideas into other peoples' posts. Pray to be filled with the Spirit. While you are at it, repent for falsely attributing bad motives to others.

Do you ever wonder why so many people describe you as arrogant after reading your posts?

Barry,

Most people I've met who who go to a church building with 'Church of Christ' on the label out front that I've talked to about these things seem to have views similar to Danny's about salvation. Do you have any evidence to show that the number of people like this is less than 5%?

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Link,

I re-post to comment:

There is no reason to read a conspiracy theory into that post. I know you say you don't have the Holy Spirit. You should pray to receive the Holy Spirit. If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall the father in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Paul wrote that we have not received the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. You could use a sound mind judging from the way you read unfounded ideas into other peoples' posts. Pray to be filled with the Spirit. While you are at it, repent for falsely attributing bad motives to others.

Do you ever wonder why so many people describe you as arrogant after reading your posts?

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

I agree. If E.Lee is ever borne from above by the Spirit, he could be a prime force for preaching the Gospel of Grace and Faith in Christ Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is the missing factor in Lee's life.

If two or three (or more) of us on this forum were to pray that he might receive this gift, we might see it happen. It is because I love Lee that I care. He believes he is doing God's work.

On one forum I was on, a young man was converted online while a very adept person led him through the Gospel. It was beautiful.

Love in Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Brethren and Fiends:

Link Hudson has correctly quoted my words as follows:

“>>For you assumed quite incorrectly that if you could just mention that the author of this unknown book was one who did not use instruments of music in his worship to God. That you could thereby prejudice our readers against what he was teaching without having to go to the trouble of mentioning his arguments and living an answer to them.<<”

To which he responds as follows:

“This is just ridiculous.”

Now that is a fine assertion offered without any proof whatsoever. It is Mr. Hudson’s opinion to which he is perfectly entitled. But it is obvious for other comments in this thread that his opinion is not shared by the majority of those who are members of the body of Christ who have commented in this thread concerning it. The fact that Mr. Davis mentioned that this author was a member of the church of Christ without telling us his name, or the details concerning his book. And without referring to any quotations from him is evidence enough that he did not mention his connection with the church of Christ for any purpose other than to “poison the wells” so to speak. For it is clear that such had nothing whatsoever to do with the question that he was asking. Most people who are not prejudiced against us can see that plainly. Those who despise us in the first place are happy to see such prejudice promoted.

Then he says:

“There you go pretending to know the motives of someone else's heart.”

I said nothing about his “motives” or knowing his heart. But rather the simple fact that his comment had not relation to the subject and was therefore designed, in the context of this forum to prejudice our readers against the position that he stated in the beginning of asking his question that he had already made up his mind against. He said so himself and therefore we are justified in our criticism.

Then he says:

“ You sure come off as defensive and a little bit paranoid.”

No that is ridiculous. It is a fine assertion offered without a shred of evidence to prove it is true. It is how I may come off with Link Hudson, who is also prejudiced against us, because we do not agree with his nonsense that he often teaches and we say so. If anyone were being “paranoid” it would be Mr. Hudson, now would it?

Then he says:

“There is not reason to get from the initial comments in this thread that the poster was trying to prejudice the readers.”

Yes there is good reason for it. And I stated them and reading from Mr. Davis’ other comments there is ample evidence that he had a strong aversion to the church of Christ with a predetermined view that we are “legalistic and sectarian”. Those who were involved in this discussion can see from his comment a strong bias against the church of Christ.

Then he says:

“ In fact, it makes perfect sense that he would identify the source.”

Indeed it would make sense that he would identify the source of any issue or position to which he was reacting. But he did not do that, now did he? He did not bother to tell us the name of the author or the title of the book and how we might have access to it so that we could judge it for ourselves. Now this he would do if he were trying to be fair, objective, and identify the source for us all to examine for ourselves. That is the purpose of identifying the source. But this book was not the source of the question that he asked. It may have been the reason that he asked it but it was not the source and the identity of this author had nothing to do with the question that was in Mr. Davis’ mind. And his bringing up the matter had nothing to do with identifying the source for he did nothing to identify the source. For all that we know there was no particular book written by a member of the church of Christ to which he was referring for he has not told us of the title and the name of the author. Therefore the identity of the source is still in question, isn’t it? We still do not know the identity of the source so from that fact alone it is clear that identifying the source was not Mr. Davis’ purpose. For if it were he failed miserably to do what he intended to do.

Then he says:

“ Like it or not, instrumental worship is one of hte most well-known differences in doctrine and practice that is commonly observed between churches with 'Christian Church' on the sign of their building and those with 'Church of Christ' on the sign of their building.”

Indeed it is a well know difference between us and it is often used, by men like Mr. Davis, to “poison the wells” in other discussions and differences that we have with one another. And your not being in this fellowship you would not understand that simple fact. A fact that not all of my brethren are guilty of doing. But I have experienced it enough to know when they are doing it and that is exactly what Mr. Davis did, and I called him on it and would do the same if he were to do it again.

Then he says:

“ Since this forum has 'Christian Church' in the name, then it was natural for the poster to point out that the author whose view he read was from a slightly different theological background.”

Brethren, does not this statement show how ignorant our Friend Link Hudson is concerning us? Are we not all members of the body of Christ? Are we not Christians who are seeking to restore New Testament Christianity in the twenty first century by returning to the word of God and away from the creeds of men? Do you agree with Mr. Hudson’s assessment here that we are “from slightly different theological backgrounds”? Are we not from the same background as the apostles of Christ because we have determined to follow the word of God and nothing else? I readily grant that we do not agree concerning instrumental music in the worship of God but that is a difference we have in our understanding of how we are to treat matters wherein God is silent and not concerning the things he has actually said to us. But is it actually an indication of a difference in our so- called “theological background”? I think not! We may disagree with one another till our Lord returns on this particular issue. But we do not disagree upon our purpose to serve Christ in obedience to the word of God. And we all oppose those who have left the principles for which we stand and they are the one’s who are always attempting to “poison the wells” as Mr. Davis has done.

Then he says:

“There is no reason to read a conspiracy theory into that post.”

Now just here he is doing nothing more that sending an echo of Mr. Davis’ already unfounded remark concerning a “conspiracy theory”. The truth is that I have said nothing about any conspiracy but rather about a common tactic which we have experience often by those who have left the truth and been turned to fables. Tactics such as “poisoning the wells” and “misrepresentations” such as the tactic use by Mr. Hudson here to accuse me of concocting a “conspiracy theory” when in truth I have said nothing about such a thing. I have taken notice of a tactic used by Mr. Davis that we have experienced all too often and that is all. And I was right to do it and will do it every time I see anyone attempting to “poison the well” before we drink from it.

“ I know you say you don't have the Holy Spirit.”

Now, Mr. Hudson does not want to tell you the whole story just here, does he? I have said very plainly that I am not an inspired man because I do not have the Holy Spirit as those who inspired men and women who received the Holy Spirit by being baptized in the Holy Spirit, such as the apostles and the house of Cornelius. And I do not have the Holy Spirit in the same way as those who received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). And not only that I have stated plainly that Link Hudson nor anyone else in this forum has the Holy Spirit as did those inspired men of the New Testament. They had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and were miraculously inspired of God by Him. I am not inspired and neither is Mr. Hudson or anyone else in this forum. And none of us, including myself have the Holy Spirit guidance of the Holy Spirit in this way. But Mr. Hudson overlooks the fact and he do so deliberately to misrepresent what I have said, that I have the same guidance of the Holy Spirit, which all Christians today have. We have the guidance offered through the words that were revealed and inspired by the Holy Spirit to those who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and delivered those inspired words to us in the New Testament. And that guidance is sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16,17). So, I do have the guidance of the Holy Spirit through His word (Heb. 4:12). And I will follow it instead of the self delusions of men like Link Hudson who pretend that they have the same indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the inspired men of the New Testament though they have absolutely no capability to DEMONSTRATE such powers as did the apostle Paul. (2 Cor. 2:1-4).

Then he says:

“ You should pray to receive the Holy Spirit.”

I have no need to pray for that which God has not promise to give to me. Such would be to pray contrary to God’s will. He has chosen all of the apostles he is ever going to have. He has inspired all of the men that he is ever going to inspire. The word of God has been “delivered” and confirmed as being from him and we have “all things that pertain to life and Godliness” in it. And to pray contrary to the will of God is to be insubordinate to the will of God and thus we will not do such a sinful thing as Mr. Hudson recommends.

And then he says:

“If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall the father in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

Indeed this prayer was according to the will of God in preparation for the upcoming fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. And since that has been fulfilled completely it is no longer accurate to pray for that which has already been accomplished for those who were told by Christ to pray such a prayer. For the other accounts of this statement say “Holy Spirit” in the place of “good things” in this verse.

Then he says:

“ Paul wrote that we have not received the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

Indeed they had received such when they received the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit which was given through the lying on of the apostles hands (Acts 19:1-6; 8:14-24). But we, that is myself and Mr. Hanson and the rest of us have received no such thing.

Then he says:

“You could use a sound mind judging from the way you read unfounded ideas into other peoples' posts.”

Indeed could not all of us use a “sound mind” Mr. Hudson? And you offer no evidence whatsoever that I have “read” anything “into” anyone’s post. That is your assertion and your hope but it is not something that you or anyone else has established as a fact. But, if a sound mind is evidence of one’s having the Holy Spirit then you have, with your deliberate misrepresentations of the facts and assertions without proof demonstrate that you definitely do not have the Holy Spirit. But the truth is that it is perfectly possible for a person to have a “sound mind” without having these miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And those who follow the teaching of the word of God given through those who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and were inspired to deliver his will to us will have to us a sound mind to do so.

Then he says:

“ Pray to be filled with the Spirit.”

I suppose that he would imply by this that he has “prayed to be filled with the Spirit” but he cannot prove that he has been “filled with the Spirit” now can he? We have never yet had a demonstration from Mr. Hudson, which would prove that HE has ever been filled with the Spirit. All we have is his word for it and we cannot trust His word. Again I will not pray contrary to the will of God. So Mr. Hudson is wasting his breath in asking me to do such nonsense. I have all the guidance from the Holy Spirit that I need and it is provided through His inspired word and having received the remission of my sins by faith in Christ and obedience to his command to be baptized for the remission of sins. That is in harmony with the will of God and is all that I need. And anyone who is interested in the discussion of that matter they can go to the archives and see where this subject has been covered. But those who were “filled with the Spirit” in the New Testament were not filled with the Spirit merely in answer to prayer. But after the resurrection of Christ and in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in the out pouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied by him (Joel 2:28) the Holy Spirit was given in only two ways. One was at the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which occurred as far as the record is concerned upon the apostles and the house of Cornelius only, and the second way was through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). But it was not done after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in response to prayer ONLY. It was done in response to prayer of the apostles and together with the lying on of their hands. (Acts 8:14-24). But no one received the Holy Spirit solely by asking for it in prayer. So, even if God had promise such to us today we would not receive merely and only by “praying for it”. So, Mr. Hudson’s advice would not produce the result that he would like to see even if we were to follow his “command” to do “pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit”. SO we hereby refuse to obey his command and any others that he might issue. For he has no authority in the matter. He is not an apostle of Christ. But we will instead “continue in the apostles doctrine…” (Acts 2:42).

Then he says:

“ While you are at it, repent for falsely attributing bad motives to others.”

Well here is another of Mr. Hanson’s “commands” that we refuse to obey”!

If he could prove that I have done such a thing I would be happy to repent of it and pray for forgiveness. But not at his command but rather at the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. But until he can prove that I am guilty of such I have no reason to lie to God by repenting for sins I have not committed just to pacify a false teacher who does not like my opposition to his false doctrines.

Then he says:

“Do you ever wonder why so many people describe you as arrogant after reading your posts?”

No, I wonder why you falsely claim that “so many” people do this? There are not many people who do this Mr. Hudson. There are a few false teachers that do not like my opposition to their doctrines which are contrary to the doctrine of Christ that do not like the fact that I am “arrogant” enough to challenge that which they are accustomed to having people accept without

I know full well, brethren, why these few false teachers must resort to attempts to focus our reader’s attention upon the non-issue and false accusation of my being "arrogant". For they would rather talk about this than the issue and arguments that they cannot answer. They do it because they cannot answer the arguments we have made and must attempt to distract our readers from their inability to do so. SO we do not “wonder” in the least about why they do such unjust and unreasonable things.

Then he ask Barry to do what he has demonstrated all ready that he cannot do:

“Barry, Most people I've met who go to a church building with 'Church of Christ' on the label out front that I've talked to about these things seem to have views similar to Danny's about salvation. Do you have any evidence to show that the number of people like this is less than 5%?”

Barry has not offered any evidence whatsoever that his “guess” that only 5% of the people to which he referred agreed with Danny about Salvation. In fact, if any one were to do a scientific survey they may find that the 5% that he imagines applies more to people that agree with Mr. Davis than to those who agree with Danny. We do not know and cannot make such assumptions without proof. But proof is of no consequence to false teachers like Mr. Hudson and Mr. Davis. They just cast out figures, which are unsupported by ANY evidence, or hard data whatsoever and we are expected to believe them just because they say it is so.

But the real truth is that truth is not determined by “head counts” or “polling”. The truth is determined by the word of God. And if only ½ % agreed with the word of God the ½% would be teaching the truth and the rest would be teaching lies and would be in rebellion to God. So when seeking the truth do not ask “how many people believe this” but what does the word of God say. And when you find the truth do not be surprised to find that often, but not always it resides among those who in the lower percentages of people who believe it. And do not ever give up the truth because the majority believes a lie!

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

E. Lee,

I didn't read all of your post. I usually don't, especially your diatribes. I did read a few bit and pieces, and wanted to comment on them

I wrote, >This is just ridiculous.

E. Lee responded, >> Now that is a fine assertion offered without any proof whatsoever.

That is a fine assertion offered with no proof whatsoever. You did not say anything to PROVE that my assertion was offered without proof, now did you?

I'm immitating your style. Don't take it as the highest form of flattery. I did it to make a point. I wrote a small paragraph. You were able to fill up a large post full of rhetoric and quoted scripture verses just based on a few lines.

>>And I do not have the Holy Spirit in the same way as those who received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6)<<

You said _I_ didn't tell the whole story. From what I recall, you were arguing that modern Christians did not have the Holy Spirit, not that you didn't have the Spirit 'in the same way' that those who received it through the laying on of the apostles hands had it.

And I recall that I pointed out that Paul wrote about saints having received the Spirit of adoption, and if the Spirit that raised up Christ from the dead dwell in you, he shall quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. If you have not the Spirit, Lee, will you join in that resurrection?

I also recall pointing out that the false teachers mentioned in Jude were described as not having the Spirit.

Have you modified your stance now to say that Christians do not have the Spirit 'in the same way.'

I wrote, > You should pray to receive the Holy Spirit.<

>> I have no need to pray for that which God has not promise to give to me. Such would be to pray contrary to God’s will.<

First of all, if you really hold to this belief consistently- the you can only pray for what you are _specifically_ promised, then you must have a limited prayer life.

Last year, I took a bus to Bali with my wife. We went on vacation to Bali. On the way, we prayed that the Lord the use us to share the Gospel with someone. We were planning on taking something up to a brother we know who had planted a church in Singaraja, among the Balinese- which is defined an unreached people group.

When we got to Bali, we found out that Singaraja was about 3 hours from the place were were staying. So we decided to rent a car.

The night before we used the car, I prayed aloud where my wife could hear, that the Lord would give us a driver whose hometown was Singaraja, and that he would be open to the Gospel.

Sure enough, the driver was from Singaraja. We started talking with him, and he opened up, told us about his problems, and his heart was very open to hear about the Lord. We talked with him about how idolatry was a sin, what Jesus did on the cross. We shared quite a bit with him. He had seen the Jesus film and had thought about becoming a Christian. My wife did most of the sharing. Her Indonesian is better, and I think she's a lot more gifted than I am in that type of personal evangelism anyway.

We were finally able to track down the church planter in Singaraja by nightfall. We introduced the driver to the church planter in Bali. The Balinese man sometimes went to the driver's city for ministry, and the driver sometimes went home to Singaraja. They stayed in contact. The driver met with the church planter, and eventually repented and was baptized. So did his wife. Their families sure didn't like it.

Now, Lee, do you consider my prayer to be a sin? Was it a sin to pray something about a driver for the car? After all, the Bible doesn't promise us anything about hired drivers for automobiles. Was it wrong for me to pray that this man would be from Singaraja? After all, the Bible doesn't promise us that we can pray that a driver will be from a certain city, and it certainly doesn't mention Singaraja in Bali Indonesia. Does the Bible promise us that God will open someone's heart to the Gospel if we pray?

Lee, do you think it's a SIN to pray to God for a car for an orphanage, to help cart the kids around? Cars aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Btw, there are some principles about prayer that Christ gave to the apostles. Here's one, 'if ye abide in Me, and My word abide in You, ye shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you.' >> He has chosen all of the apostles he is ever going to have.<<

This is something you have never been able to prove. Ephesians 4:11 says that apostles are given till we come to the full measure of the stature of Christ. The church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, but that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets in later generations. Btw, the Didache, written around the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, refers to certain traveling ministers as apostles. Apparently the author, who lived in a generation that had known the apostles, believed in the continuing apostolic ministry.

Besides, the Bible doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit is given exclusively through the laying on of hands of the apostles. I've shown you evidence for this repeatedly. The scriptures don't teach that the Spirit is given exclusively through the apostles hands, and what you do is try to make the examples that disprove your point into exceptions. That is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

Lee wrote, >> He has inspired all of the men that he is ever going to inspire. The word of God has been “delivered” and confirmed as being from him and we have “all things that pertain to life and Godliness” in it. And to pray contrary to the will of God is to be insubordinate to the will of God and thus we will not do such a sinful thing as Mr. Hudson recommends.

You have some bizaar views. You think it is sinful to pray to receive the Holy Ghost? That's really sick. You need to take your blinders off and read your Bible. I've got a question for you. When Jesus asked His audience that if they knew how to give goods to their children, how much more would the Father give the Holy Ghost ot them that asked Him- just who was His audience? Was it just the 12 apostles? Take a look at the context and compare it to the parallel passages in the Gospels.

Ephesians 5:17-18

17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Let's consider what Paul has to say. Paul told his readers to be filled with the Spirit. You need to 'understand what the will of the Lord is.' It is the will of the Lord that saints be filled with the Spirit. Nothing in Acts 2 limits receiving the Spirit to that day of Pentecost or to the first century. In fact, Peter offers the promise of the Spirit to all who are afar off.

How do we know that we have eternal life? By the Spirit that dwells in us. Read I John. Paul wrote to the Romans- to whom he hoped to impart some spiritual gift, btw- that the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.

Why don't you pray to receive the Holy Ghost. Wouldn't you like the love of God to be shed abroad in your heart? It's not enough to change your theological position on the Spirit and to begin to confess that you have the Spirit. You need to have the love of God shed abroad in your heart.

Lee, don't deny that you are trying to attribute certain motives to Barry Davis. The people on this forum can read. Look at the following quote, taken from your earlier response, speaking of Barry Davis:

>>It does indeed seem that Mr. Davis expects to gain some sympathy for his unstated position but stated opposition to the author’s position. He hopes obviously to do this by beginning with this feeble attempt to prejudice our readers in this forum against the position held by the author of this book on the basis of the fact that he worship God in a scriptural manner. <<

I have a question for you Lee. How can you know that Barry 'hopes' to do as you claim? You don't claim to have any supernatural revelation from God that shows you the secrets of men's hearts, unless your position has changed.

How then can you know Barry's hopes? Could it be that you 'know' it by means of arrogant paranoia. After all, if you guess that the motives for a certain statement in this forum must be negative, then it seems that you are able to 'know' with certainty that whatever you guess is to be true is true.

After all, if the 'great' E. Lee Saffold thought that Barry wanted to prejudice the forum, then it must be so, right? Since the 'great' E. Lee thought of it, it must be a fact, right? Arrogant- because you think of it it 'must' be right. Paranoia- you seem convinced that the purpose of Barry's message was to prejudice others against people of your persuasion. Arrogant paranoia. Is that your means of 'knowing' someone else's motives?

If you know that your accusations of others aren't reasonable, and you just enjoy attacking people, that's just plain evil. If you are actually convinced of what you write, you need a sound mind. Either way you need to repent, and you need the work of the Spirit in you.

Maybe if you had more fear of God, you would be less inclined to attack man. You read your own sinister ideas into other people's posts. You've been doing that since I first started reading this forum. It is certainly not 'obvious' that Barry Davis was trying to prejudice the forum. In fact, it's extremely likely that he _knew_ that.

If you REALLY believed what you wrote to me below, realizing that Barry Davis is likely familiar between the differences within the RM, then would you have written the following:

>>Are we not Christians who are seeking to restore New Testament Christianity in the twenty first century by returning to the word of God and away from the creeds of men? Do you agree with Mr. Hudson’s assessment here that we are from slightly different theological backgrounds? Are we not from the same background as the apostles of Christ because we have determined to follow the word of God and nothing else? I readily grant that we do not agree concerning instrumental music in the worship of God but that is a difference we have in our understanding of how we are to treat matters wherein God is silent and not concerning the things he has actually said to us. But is it actually an indication of a difference in our so- called theological background?<<

If this is the case, why do you assume that Barry Davis was trying to prejudice people just by mentioning the fact that the author of the book was non-instrumentalist?

I take it that you don't consider a disagreement concerning, 'our understanding of how we are to treat matters wherein God is silent and not concerning the things he has actually said to us' a point of theology, that is up to you. I do notice that you mentioned God in your explanation of the different views within the RM. And theology, in a strict sense, is the study of God.

It looks like you were just looking for another excuse to argue- to object so verbosely to describing this difference with the phrase, slightly different theological backgrounds.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

RSV

Ephesians 5: 14-21

5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."

5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,

5:16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil.

5:17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery;

***but be filled with the Spirit,*** 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 5:20 always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.

5:21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

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

BE SUBJECT TO ONE ANOTHER OUT OF REVERENCE FOR CHRIST.

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

[SORT OF LIKE: 'WHATSOEVER YOU DO TO THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, YOU DO TO ME'].

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

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

It is interesting that this command about being filled with the Spirit is part of the very same sentence that says to speak to one another is psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart.

I wonder if E. Lee thinks the part about making melody to the Lord with all your heart is still for today, but disregards the part about being filled with the Spirit as not for today.

Of course, making melody with the heart does not preclude instrumental expression of the melody any more than it precludes verbal expression.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Mr. Hudson has quoted the following:

“5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,”

After which he states the following:

“It is interesting that this command about being filled with the Spirit is part of the very same sentence that says to speak to one another is psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart.”

Now that is the truth and we agree with it. The command to be “filled with the Spirit” is indeed found in the same place where the command to sing is given to us.

Then he does not ask me directly, but “wonders” the following:

“I wonder if E. Lee thinks the part about making melody to the Lord with all your heart is still for today, but disregards the part about being filled with the Spirit as not for today.”

E. Lee does not disregard anything that the scriptures teach. He obeys them as much as is possible. E. Lee sings and makes melody in his heart to the Lord as this verse commands. And this verse says nothing about using a mechanical instrument of music. But the heart is the instrument upon which we are to play or accompany our singing. The instrument is specified to be the heart. And therefore E. Lee Saffold plays upon the instrument that God authorizes which is the heart.

Now, as E. Lee has proven before these words are written to the Ephesians who had the Holy Spirit, which they received through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. (Acts 19:1-6). And therefore they had it within their power to sing inspired songs. Neither E. Lee nor Mr. Hanson has ever had an apostle lay hands upon us and therefore we have not received the Holy Spirit. Thus we can do what this passage tells us. We can sing making melody in our heart and we can sing in harmony with the instruction or guidance of the Holy Spirit through the inspired word of God. Even though, since we have not received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. And therefore we cannot sing songs that are inspired by the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit for he does not dwell within us as he did the Ephesians. But we can, and we do sing songs by the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we sing songs that harmonize with His teaching in his word. And though we are not “filled with the Spirit”, as were these Ephesians who received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. We are able to sing by His guidance thorough the revealed word of God. Which is what they were actually being commanded to do in the verse during the time when the word of God was in the process of being revealed to them by the Holy Spirit who dwelt within them. We have not received the Holy Spirit and neither has any one else today. But the Holy Spirit does guide us in our singing if we follow the guidance he provided in his word. Which guidance is recorded in this verse for our benefit. What was given through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit has been delivered to us through the inspired word of God. For this reason were are told in a parallel passage from Colossians the following:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Col. 3:16,17).

Now this was done, in New Testament times, as the word of God was being delivered to men who had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them for the purpose of revelation and confirmation of the word of God. And the word of God that we read today came to us through these men who were inspired in this way. And they were to let the word of God dwell in them richly. And then to sing according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the guidance received from that word as it was being delivered and we sing today according to those same words that was so delivered to us through them. And today, though we are not inspired of God because we do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. We are able to let that same inspired word of God dwell in us richly. By filling our hearts with those words, which were delivered to us by those who had the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven that was dwelling within them for that very purpose. And we can thereby sing with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a manner acceptable to God. It was God’s purpose in delivering His words to us through them that we, who do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, could be guided by Him through those words He delivered through these inspired men within whom he did dwell. Thus we do still let the word of Christ dwell in us richly and we sing in harmony with those words and in obedience to that command.

Now, Mr. Hudson does not inform you of the fact that he cannot “be filled with the Spirit” in the same way as these inspired persons could either. Because the Holy Spirit does not dwell within Him and he does not sing songs inspired by the Holy Spirit without singing songs that are in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit through His inspired word. For it is the word of God that is inspired today whereas before the word of God was written down for us the word of God was in the inspired men who actually received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. But today the word of God is in the inspired book written by these inspired men in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4)

And for one to claim that the Holy Spirit is inspiring men today is to claim inspiration for oneself. Now if you are in fact inspired because you have received the Holy Spirit you should be able to demonstrate that you are so inspired as did these persons in the New Testament. No one in this forum can do that. And none of those who claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them can demonstrate that he does dwell within them as did Paul and the early Christians. Who are the only one’s that have ever had these miraculous gifts that were designed for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God and guiding the church during it’s infancy while until the word of God was completely revealed. After that time the Holy Spirit continued to guide the church through that inspired word.

If anyone wants to claim inspiration today, as does Mr. Hanson, they must be able to demonstrate that they have such power from God. We do not believe that they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and are therefore inspired of God unless they can demonstrate that it is true by power, as did the apostle Paul. (2 Cor. 2:4). But they cannot do it. All they can do is pretend, claim, and delude themselves into believing that they have the Holy Spirit but none of them can prove that they do, in fact, have the Holy Spirit. We have asked them to demonstrate powers, which show that they are inspired of God but they fail to do so. And these verses which they quote concerning the "gift of the Holy Spirit" and the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit" are all passages that were written to and about inspired persons. Persons who were being guided directly by the Holy Spirit dwelling within them for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God. Which word did The Holy Spirit, through these inspired men in this method gave us His perpetual guidance. These verses do not prove the Holy Spirit dwells within all men who obey the gospel for all time to come. For they are written to those who had already recived the gift of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands. (Acts 8:14-24; 19:1-6).

The Holy Spirit speaking through men within whom he dwelt guided the church. And now he continues to guide the church through these same men within whom he dwelt in the beginning through the words which he inspired them to write into the inspired book which is now as it was then called the WORD OF GOD.

Those who claim the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit today are actually seeking to depart from the true guidance of the Holy Spirit which He provided through the inspiration of these men within whom he actually dwelt for that purpose. (Mark 16:16-20; Heb. 2:3,4). They are seeking to turn to instead the subjective guidance of their imaginations, feeling, hunches and emotions of their own hearts. And this is a devious trick devised by Satan to deceive men into thinking that they are being lead by the Holy Spirit. When in truth they being lead away from the Holy Spirit and are following instead nothing more than their vain imaginations contrary to the truth of God’s word and the genuine guidance of the Holy Spirit found therein. But if there claims are true then they should be able to demonstrate that God’s spirit dwells in them and that God is so guiding them apart from the guidance which we know he was providing through those who have demonstrated that he was guiding. And no one since the apostles has ever been able to show that they have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and that they are being lead by the Holy Spirit in this way. Mr. Hudson has certainly refused to even attempt to demonstrate that such is the truth. And all of these false teachers that make this foolish claim today refuse to demonstrate it is true as did Paul (2 Cor. 4:2).

Now we have discussed this matter before and we can continue to discuss it again and again and again as I have time to do it. But until Mr. Hudson can demonstrate that he has the Holy Spirit dwelling within him we have no reason to believe it. And he thinks that we have apostles of Christ today as Paul, James, John, Peter was in the New Testament. Though he does not name them. It could be that he is looking for a group of people that are easily deceived so that he can one day claim that he is an apostle himself. When he does, we will show that he is a liar just as those whom the Ephesians tested who claimed to be apostles but were found to be liars. “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” (Rev. 2:1,2). Mr. Hudson has already started in that direction by claiming that we have apostles today other than those whom we know from the New Testament to actually have been apostles. Yet he cannot even tell us who they are. So that we can “try them” as did the Ephesians of old and find out whether thy are liars as were those who made such claims of thousands of years ago.

Then he says:

“Of course, making melody with the heart does not preclude instrumental expression of the melody any more than it precludes verbal expression.”

Ephesians 5:19 commands us to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord. That is all that it does. It does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship at all. If we obey this command to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord we will sing and make music on the instrument specified in the command. If we use an instrument we do so by some authority other than this verse. For this verse does not authorize it in any way whatsoever. And if this were the only verse in the scriptures telling us what to do about this matter it would be presumption on our part to assume that we are allowed to do anything that it does not “preclude” so long as we do what it authorizes. But this is just a way for man to direct his own steps beyond what God has commanded him to do and such behavior is rebellion against God. Now this is not to say that my brethren who use instruments agree with this position. I am more than aware that they do not and the reasons why. But this is simply given as an explanation of why we do not use instruments in our worship. Because we have determined to do only what God has commanded us without adding anything to it or taking any thing from it. And this is what we do when we sing and make melody in our heart tot he Lord. WE do only what God has commanded and no more.

We are filled with the word of God which is as close as we can get to being “filled with the spirit” because we have not had an apostle lay hands upon us that we might receive the Holy Spirit. We are much like the Samaritans before the apostles came and laid their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For we are told: “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 8:15-17). So Connie and Mr. Hudson are busy praying for me that I might receive the Holy Spirit. When what they need to do, especially Mr. Hudson who believes that we have apostles living today, is to go find an apostle and have him “come down” just as Peter and John did in Samaria. And pray for me that I might receive the Holy Spirit and then lay his hands on me and so that I can receive the Holy Spirit as did the Samaritans. (Acts 8:15-17; Acts 19:1-6). And until they can do that I will remain in the same condition that the Samaritans were in before Peter and John had come to them. The Holy Spirit has not “fallen on” me any more that it had upon them only I have been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as they had been. So, if they really want me to receive the Holy Spirit they need to find an apostle to lay his hands upon me for that purpose. Then their prayers would make some sense.

I therefore do not have the Holy Spirit, though I do have his guidance. Which he has provided through those who did in fact have the Holy Spirit and revealed his word for our guidance. And I will not pretend, as Mr. Hudson does, that I have the Holy Spirit when I have no evidence of it and cannot demonstrate it as did the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:2) and those with who the Holy Spirit worked in the New Testament. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4). Thus I will not lie as many do with their false claims of having the Holy Spirit and being guided by Him apart from the word of God. Even though they cannot prove to anyone that they actually have the Holy Spirit.

I have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the word of God and that is sufficient. (2 Tim. 3; 16,17; 1Peter 1:3; Jude 3).

We have discussed this matter at length in other threads and urge our readers to go to the archives and review those discussions if they wish to look into this matter.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Link,

What is this nonsense about instruments and non instruments?

Just wondering….

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Barry Hanson,

Thank you for taking the time to sign with your full name, it will cut down on some of the confusion I know myself and others are having differentiating between you and Barry Davis.

I asked you to give a verse that says that the REASON for baptism was to obey. You quoted Mt. 28:18-20. This verse does not state the REASONS for baptism, it is a mission given for us to teach, baptize, and teach people to observe ALL things God has commanded. We are to OBEY ALL of God's commands, but this verse does not teach we are to be baptized simply to obey.

You say, "If you are really interested I can go through each reference you posted to show you a reasonable explanation you may or may not have looked at. I have discovered that most on this forum are not interested."

Fire away.

You stated… "Only until about a year and a half ago did I ever hear that my own work of water baptism saves me along with a multitude of other conditions."

Show me a verse that teaches baptism is man's work. See Col. 2:12.

Romans 6…

Definitely shows a work going on, but let's look to see if it is any work of man that merits our salvation or that is causing us to become a new creature.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

Paul asks if we died to sin should we continue in sin? His answer is NO. Let's pay attention to HOW he says no. Don't you know that all that have been baptized have been baptized into Christ's death? If we have not been baptized, we have not met Christ in death.

And what is the REASON given here for being buried with Christ in baptism? So that just as Christ was raised BY THE FATHER so we too might have NEW LIFE. If we are untied with Him in death we will also be in the likeness of His resurrection.

Now, when we are united in His death we KNOW THIS…"knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin." Our old self is crucified with HIM so that our body of sin will be done away with, and because we have died we are free from sin.

"Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

"IF" we have died with Christ, and I think all here would agree that we MUST die with Christ in order to be saved, then we shall live with Him. Even so we consider ourselves dead to sin. WHY? Again it goes back to the GOD GIVEN REASONS for baptism. We are born again, a new creature with a new life.

You say: "I have decided to believe that Christ completed the work, His finished work is wholly sufficient to save, and any attempt on my part to add to this is an utter waste of my time and really an insult to the Grace of God."

Now the above concerning Romans 6 is God working, raising Christ from the dead, raising us from a life of sin to be a new creature with a new life. We are not able to forgive our own sins as you well know.

You say: "IMHO those who consider themselves saved by the merit of their own obedience…"

As you know we do not consider that we are saved by our OWN power. We are saved by Grace through faith WHEN we confess, repent, and are baptized.

In another post to me you say: "After responding to your message, I read what you wrote to John.

"How can I be saved from sin BEFORE those sins are forgiven in baptism??"

D Muse, this is the fundamental difference between our two gospels, you believe sins are forgiven when we work, I believe sins are forgiven when Christ worked. Colossians 2:13-15

Barry, this is not true! Have I ever said that I believe sins are forgiven when we work? You are the one who keeps saying that. I believe sins are forgiven when Christ worked, and here you quote some very good verses to support this belief…but let's back up a couple of verses to see HOW we are "…quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses…"

Col. 2:11-12 "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

How is this done? Having been buried with Him in Baptism. We were raised up with Christ through faith in the WORKING OF GOD, who raised Christ from the dead.

You say: "God, forgave my trespasses and took it out of the way at the cross, not at my water baptism."

The Bible says He forgives us at baptism (Col. 2:11-15; Rom. 6) Therefore we are not redeemed the moment you believe. For even the demons believe.

You ask: "When was I quickened together with Him? When was I forgiven of my trespasses? When were the handwriting of ordinances against me blotted out and taken out of the way? At the cross!"" Where do we go to meet Him at the cross? At Baptism when as Romans says our old self is crucified with Him.

Who ever said that an unbeliever is going to desire to obey the commands of Christ? And who ever said that I ever expected a complete non-believer to be baptized?

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.

You ask: "Where does it say, that which is born of the water and of the Spirit is spirit??? "

Jesus said…"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus believed here as you do that God was speaking of physical birth hence his question…How can a man be born when he is old. Jesus instruction is to show that one must be "born again" of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom. Jesus was not speaking of a physical birth, but a rebirth, becoming a new creature as in Romans 6.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Jesus said…"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus believed here as you do that God was speaking of physical birth hence his question…How can a man be born when he is old. Jesus instruction is to show that one must be "born again" of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom. Jesus was not speaking of a physical birth, but a rebirth, becoming a new creature as in Romans 6.

-- D. Lee Muse (dleemuse@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

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

Of course, you are making the erroneous assumption that 'water' here means baptism. It means no such thing. If Jesus had meant baptism, he'd have used the word 'baptizo' or another form of 'immerse in water'. He used the basic words 'gennoah' and 'gennathays' (transliterations) meaning physical birth.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

D Muse,

You have posted quite a bit of Scripture - NONE of which mentions WATER baptism. In the past I have had to read through much of Mr. Saffold's nonsense about the definition of the word "baptism", the point is the word baptism does not in every instance refer to WATER baptism. Therefore the CONTEXT of the passage needs to define which baptism is being discussed.

IF you can show me in Romans or Colossians for that matter where the word WATER is mentioned OR how the CONTEXT of the passage lends itself in any way to inferring that it is water baptism that would be helpful. HOWEVER, if you are unable to show this, I suggest that you have been hoodwinked by a very small sect with a "piece" of the Brooklyn Bridge to sell.

Let's look at Romans 6 again….

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?"

Well now, what does the text say?

It is my experience on this forum that the text cannot be taken to mean what it says, however, I will again go over this simple statement and anticipate a complicated and convoluted reply.

I believe the gospel is simple. To complicate it, is in my opinion, diabolical.

The text states emphatically "….baptized into Christ Jesus…", only one question remains, IS CHRIST JESUS WATER?

Does the text state "…baptized into water…"? NO

The question then begs to be asked, how is one baptized into Jesus Christ? Through the operation of God, not water baptism!

Colossians 2:11,12 make this abundantly clear

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

As we can see from Colossians our baptism into Christ is made "without hands", unlike water baptism. Our baptism into Christ is what puts off sin and is done through faith. Also we clearly see it is the "operation of God" as opposed to water baptism which is the operation of man. You even point out it is the "operation of God" and still you insist that it is the operation of man via water baptism (?) Either, it is the operation of God or the operation of man, it cannot be both, the text does not leave room for that interpretation. Therefore, Colossians is talking about baptism as the operation of God or the operation of man and we can obviously see from the simplicity of the text it is not referring to water baptism as this is the operation of man.

Christ has made this so simple a child can understand it! Yet we have these "teachers of the Law" making it so complicated that a person could never be certain they have obeyed, performed and worked enough to make it.

I understand there is nothing I am going to say that will cause you to realize that any action you take outside of faith is futile and that once you do believe you are born of God (1 John 5:1). I conclude that our discussion is not going anywhere unless you wish to continue I will certainly be glad to supply you with the overall Scriptural teaching of Redemption and that the very few phrases you folks take out of context do not altar the simple over riding theme of grace through faith.

I could go on - but the Scriptures teach "where words are many sin is not absent", therefore I keep my words few.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001