As you probably know.....the RM has always prided itself on being "a people of the book."

But are we??

As a number of you know.....I'm an advocate of a Bible preaching plan known as "Bible Book of the Month."

Essentially.....I am serving in my fourth congregation as the Preacher. In two of my last three congregations I preached through the entire Bible......preaching at least two or three sermons.....and giving one lesson from each book of the Bible. Study questions were provided. In my last congregation....we actually made it through 1 1/2 times.

Now.....in my current ministry....we have just completed the half way point.

Let me share an observation with you that has been true in every congregation....but was again demonstrated two Sundays ago here at Kent.

I began a series from Ecclesiastes. I asked the 170 people if any of them had EVER heard a sermon from Ecclesiastes. Two people raised their hand.

This same thing was repeated when we studied Leviticus....and I will guess the same thing will be true when we study Obadiah, Nahum, etc. Again...this is a constant in every church I have ever been in.

Now....if we are a "people of the book".....then why is this??

And don't give me the "Well....we are N.T. Christians" baloney!!!

The Bible says...."ALL Scripture is insprired...and profitable..." Interestingly when Paul wrote that to Timothy.....he was speaking of the O.T. since there was no such thing as a N.T. yet.

"A People of the Book"....hmmmmmmm....something to think about.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Answers

Now Danny,

When you say "the book" you mean the latest Bob Russell book don't you? Or do you mean Swindoll, Graham, or Colson? You have to be clear in these matters.

Our Churches have gotten so far from "the Book" that they no longer know what book you are referring to. That may be a bit of an exageration, but I'm afraid it's not too far from the truth.

Most cannot quote from some of the Books of the Bible you mentioned, but they could sure quote Russell et al ver baitum.

That's all I have time for this morning. Later.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Ooooooohhhhhhh.....Scotty!! Feeling a bit frisky this morning are we??

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Scott -- more truth to your post than you might imagine. I worked with one preacher who basically listened to Russell's tapes, and transcribed the material onto his computer, then preached the material the following Sunday. And I'm sure there are many others who do the same thing. It has been said that when Bob Russell quits preaching, 500 ministers will be out of a job!

Whatever happened to biblical scholarship? I like the Bible Book of the Month plan ... used it in my last two congregations. Most of the folks enjoyed it as well. And ... it forces preachers to write sermons from books of the Bible that they never would if they didn't use a plan like this. Maybe that is the reason preachers don't preach "through the Bible" anymore!

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Danny,

How long does it take you to preach through the Bible?

If you literaly preach a book per month... how can you preach through a book like Genesis or Acts or the gospels in 1 month?

I assume you just give the general idea of the book and push the people to deeper study?

Also... when you preach the OT, do you bring it back to the cross? I would be interested in seeing some sermons on Leviticus.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Marc.....

When I get the chance....I will start another thread with the outline of the program. In fact, it is the info sheet we give to new members of the congregation to try and get them involved in it.

Yes.....for big books like Genesis....you hit the main themes.....and 6-7 sermons is usually plenty to do this.

As per the O.T.....pointing to the cross....as someone once taught me....."The O.T. is the N.T concealed......the N.T. is the O.T. revealed."

Every verse in the Bible....points to the cross.

If you would like.....I believe I can send you about 6 or 7 sermons from Leviticus. They are in M/S word format.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Oh yeah....it takes 4 years.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Marc,

I can sure vouch for the Bible Book program Danny uses as I went through those 6 years with him and helped him preach it for the last 4 of those years. Between the topics you hit in the sermons and the group review of each Book's Study Questions, one gets a well rounded view of the Book. In some cases, I'd even venture to say I learned as much about a Book in this program as I did in a College class on the same Book.

A lot of its benefits however depends on who is teaching & preaching it and how they approach it. What also helps is to have more than 1 good man preaching from each Book, as that also helps present slightly different viewpoints that are valid, yet might not be broached by the other.

It's a great way to get a good, structured understanding of "The Book". And from a preacher's standpoint, I love it because you always know a year in advance what Book you'll be preaching from at any given time.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Danny,

I would like to see the outline of the program when you have a chance. It sounds like a great idea... I believe that the hard part would be picking what to preach from some of the books... when I preach through a book it seems to be 6-15 sermons... I seem to always have too much to preach:)

I would also appreciate it you would send those Leviticus sermons my way when you have a chance... Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Marc,

If you're really a glutton for punishment, I could send a couple of Leviticus sermons as well... ;-)

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Brethren:

I am encouraged by this particular thread to see that everyone thus far who have commented in it are hungering and thirsting for a return to the word of God found in “THE BOOK” which all know as the Bible which is from the Greek term “biblos” meaning “book”. Indeed the Bible is “The Book”. And no man is truly educated who is ignorant of its contents!

There are many ways to be a “people of the Book”. And as I am now and have ever been among the people who have been known and remain to be known as a “people of the book” I will describe some of the reasons that they are known as such.

First, they daily teach their friends and neighbors from it by using it in all of their normal conversations about life in the work place, at home, and in schools and in every place where they are found discussing this life with their fellowman. They speak in every place of the Christ and the way of life. They never say, “I cannot remember where that verse is found but the Bible says it somewhere”? No! They know exactly where it is found, even if they must keep notes tucked in their Bibles, so that they can find certain verses when needed.

Second, you cannot ever “catch them” without a Bible. It is either in their pocket or on the top of their desk (opened I might add) or in the dash of their car or in the side pocket of their sports coats or business suits. Or it is in their purse. But wherever it is it is near by to be reached when needed. There was a farmer, in Alabama that I knew, and he was not unusual among the disciples there who always had a copy or the New Testament in his coveralls. And it was not there just for him to read but for him to give to one that he might be talking with about the gospel of Christ so that they could read as he quoted from it. There was a preacher of the gospel, named Brother G. A. Dunn, who was very active in preaching in Alabama and in many debates with sectarians. And the story is told of how he was riding on one occasion to a debate and he had one of the preaching students from the local Christian College with him. And as they rode together he asked the young “preacher boy” to read from the New Testament as they went along. And occasionally the preacher boy would miss a word such as a “an” or a “the” or some small word easily skipped. And Brother Dunn would correct him and ask him to start over and read it again. Finally, the “preacher boy” was a little bit frustrated and said, “Brother Dunn, if you know the word of God so well that you can cite it all from memory why do you want me to read it to you?” And it moves me to this day to remember brother Dunn's reported reply. He said, “I just love to hear it son, I just love to hear it…!

Third, this “people of the book” read it constantly. At home in the evenings such a people were known to gather their children before going to bed, usually around the fire place, and read to them every night for years missing not one single night, ever, for any reason. They would read it on their lunch breaks at their work, and while waiting for their turn in the “barber shop” or when waiting at the dentist or the doctor’s office. Whenever and wherever they had the opportunity they were reading it over and over and over again. They loved the Book because those words came from the Christ that they loved so much. They did not want to forget any of it for it was their desire to obey it in all that it taught. It was not uncommon, and is not uncommon to this day to find among them some of the greatest “scholars in the brotherhood whose scholarship is known only to their friends, neighbors and family. In their house no liberal, modernistic, shipwrecked concerning the faith, person could exert any influence whatsoever. And on occasion some of those pretending to be scholars by claiming to have found reasons to doubt the inspiration of the book met with arguments from the Book itself that they could not answer. Arguments presented by a “scholar in coveralls”. And went away silenced for their “mouth had been stopped” by an “elder in the body of Christ” who was a farmer, a gentleman, and a Biblical Scholar who had no intentions of ever being a scholar and probably never knew that he was one!

Fourth, people of the book will not tolerate for long a preacher of anything other than the book. One who preaches by quoting the latest news from the morning paper. Or one that is fond of quoting from scholarly journals of brother hood papers or the latest fad book that is being promoted in the entire religious world for profit. They do not tolerate the use of the pulpit as a platform to “entertain” rather than edify the holy body of Christ! They despise preachers who appear to be performing a “stand up comic routine” designed to make the congregation laugh. Who lead them from one joke to another until they are “drunken” with such excess frivolity that even the preacher has forgotten exactly what “spiritual lesson” he had thought to “tie in” with his jokes!

Fifth, these people love expository preaching that gives a thorough examination and exposition of portions of Gods word. And this form of preaching mostly satisfies spiritual hunger for “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God but which man lives”. (Matt. 4:2). Combined with practical lessons derived from and based upon what it actually says a preacher who is a “man of the book” never runs out of material to preach. And he never fails to bring lessons of great import and spiritual wisdom for the edification of the body of Christ among whom he labors. These people of the book despise those who “take a text and use it as a pretext completely void of any consideration of the context to teach what every one expects”! They are not fond of those who seek nothing more then to “stimulate” their audience. And “move” them to feel “manufactured emotions” not connected in the least with their intellect and will. For they know that false doctrines, whether deliberately or inadvertently, lie crouched subtly behind their false pretentious tears, soft words, fair speech, and imitation plastic "love". And they are disgusted by their use of tactics to keep those who have no interest in God or his word “motivated” to feel pleased and to enjoy the service. Which was designed solely with their feelings in mind and to the neglect of the presence of Christ and the teaching of the Holy Spirit through his inspired and Holy Words! They consider such persons the worst and vilest servants of Satan on this earth!

Lastly, they are a people that cannot be persuaded to believe or practice anything that cannot be proven as true or taught by direct command, necessary inference, or approved apostolic precedent, in the word of God. Now there are those who do not like this approach. But those who are a people of the book take this approach simply because they want their lives to follow strictly the teachings of that book without error and it is by this means that they propose to avoid error. Does it always work? They are not sure. But it has proven to be far more effective than any other way and they would say to anyone not liking this method, “please show us a better way”! Knowing all along that no one can show them a better way than that which was spawned from their strong desire to “walk with God” by making His word their only rule of faith and practice!

I recommend Brethren that we take this attitude of being a “people of the Book” and practice it in this forum. I have a suggestion. Let Brother Danny (our new sheriff in town) "assign" to those of us who write regularly in this forum, who are willing to do so, a book from the Bible. And to write weekly about it, after having studied diligently and researched the portion of the book he is coving for that week until we have covered the entire Bible. I believe that such would not be without some controversy in some places but mostly such would edify us. Especially if we approach it with the highest respect for God and his people the saints of God. By this means we might be steered away from some of the absurd and silly controversies often seen here and find a closer walk with God ourselves. And the preachers in this forum will have plenty of “sermon material” taken from the fountain from which the gospel originated and guided by the Holy Spirit through his word to teach the truth and walk uprightly. Please brethren. Let us begin now, in this forum to discuss in a systematic way THE BOOK. And let us do it with the ability that we have. We do not need “scholars” to explain it all to us. We can understand it for it is not just an “ancient book” of interest and value for scholars and archeologist. It is the word of God written to man. It is the precious word of God and without it and all that it teaches us all of our “petty controversies” (By comparison) are nothing more than moot!

Let us do this, brethren. It is hard word but a worth work. Let us expound upon the word of God in this forum. You will find it to be far more interesting than so- called “contemporary brother hood issues” and comments upon the politics of the times we live in. And I am not condemning the discussion of such topics nor saying that they should cease. But I am saying that they should take a far “back seat” to this most important thing. Let us lead our readers “back to THE BOOK”. Let us do so by a return to the constant exposition of the word of God by competent men among us who are willing to do the work. Please give serious consideration to this suggestion my brethren and let us know by you comments if you agree to be, along with us, a “people of the book” in this forum.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Lee

My vote

Speaking as a lurking learner, I am very much in favor of a book by book study. I think there is a group of very capable teachers on this forum. If this does come about I would like to see Benjamin R. and Sam L. return and be a part of this also.

I do think someone (the sheriff) would need to oversee and coordinate this.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

“Lee My vote Speaking as a lurking learner, I am very much in favor of a book by book study.”

I am happy to see that you agree that such could be beneficial to us all.

You correctly say:

“ I think there is a group of very capable teachers on this forum.”

I agree with you. And it is wise to encourage the use of their skills and talents in such a noble endeavor which is sure to greatly benefit our study of God’s word, and edification of the saints.

I also agree very much with your following comment:

“ If this does come about I would like to see Benjamin R. and Sam L. return and be a part of this also.”

I say a hearty AMEN AND AMEN to this comment. Both of these men are very talented, intelligent, capable, knowledgeable and faithful to God and His word. I can only imagine how much good could be done in this forum with such men writing well-informed and researched comments upon the word of God. This suggestion is one that I completely and wholeheartedly support. And I would be more than eager to contact these two men by e-mail and ask them to participate.

You have also wisely stated:

“I do think someone (the sheriff) would need to oversee and coordinate this.”

I agree that such an effort would need coordination and direction. And I agree that (the sheriff) is a logical choice for such a task. And if we ask the sheriff to do such we should all volunteer to be “deputized” to help him if he needs it.

Thanks for your concurrence with this idea. I sincerely believe that it could contribute much to the edification of the body of Christ trough this forum.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Brother Faris:

Sorry. My last post was addressed to you but when I copied it from my word document you name was cut off in the begining of the document and I did not notice it. But the above post was addressed to you and your excellent comments.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Our new pastor recognizes our church's Biblical ignorance and has plans to have a daily scripture reading during the service (like the old-fashioned lectionary), but even this idea may never come to fruition here. For the pastor has begun giving sermons with more meat in them, and passing out sermon notes in the bulletins, and the "old guard" are already complaining that church is becoming too much like sunday school (*gasp*, they might learn something!).

As Paul said, by now some of you should be teachers, but you are having to have the most elementary things of the gospel taught to you over and over again, because (literally) you are too stupid to learn it. *sigh* When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith in this world?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Hi,

E. Lee has made an argument for Expository Preaching. I agree that Expository preaching is effective and is very helpful in teaching us the "whole counsel of God". In Bible College (Ozark Christian College) I was taught that this was really the only acceptable form of preaching. Since I've been out of school I've done quite a bit of study in this area. The problem is, I don't find anything close to Expository Preaching in the Bible. In fact, it is almost all topical/textual. In addition, especially the preaching of Jesus, is more inductive than deductive. If we are a "People of the Book" why do we emphasize something that is not modeled in the Book?

I think it is necessary to understand our audience. For some, Expository preaching will best get the message across, for others, a topical and/or an iductive approach will work best. Whatever technique is used, it is certainly not a "Thus saith the Lord".

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Show me a church where the preacher has preached expositorily for 5 plus years.....and a church that has had little homilies spoon fed to them with some "drama for your mama" thrown in......and I'll show you a significant difference in spiritual maturity and/or knowledge between the two.

The N.T. is replete with the statement....."and beginning from the Scriptures." What could be more expository.

It might be good to define expository as I believe most (as indicated by my Master's research).....do not know what it is.

Expository preaching is preaching that takes into account the author's purpose in writing the letter/book/etc.....and thus interprets the text in light of that purpose.

A for instance is the book of Galatians. Paul's purpose in writing was to combat the Judaisers. Every verse must then be interpreted in order to fit the author's purpose of defending the gospel against the Judaisers.

Once the interpretation is made.....then application can be made to the modern day audience. This is the where the "craftsmanship" of sermon writing comes in....i.e., taking a document intended for a first century audience (or earlier).....and making modern day application.

You just don't get that with topical sermons.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Ohhhhh....by the way Barry....there is another one of your false teachers...i.e., the Judaisers.

They did not doubt the diety of Christ.....and yet.....Paul calls them accursed (Greek...literally consigned to hell).

So denying the diety of Jesus was not the sole prerequisite for being labeled....."a false teacher."

In Galatian for instance.....he calls it a "gospel....which really wasn't a gospel at all."

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Danny,

Why resort to childishness such as "drama for your mama". My post implied nothing of the sort. Jesus taught in parables -- was that wrong?

Many strong biblical churches have been built with a mixture of both expository and topical sermons -- Southeast Christian, Willow Creek Community, Saddleback Community, etc.....

Your book of the month plan would not fit most definitions of expository preaching either. I agree that an expository sermon can be from one text (or paragraph) without going through the entire book verse by verse, but most use the term to describe exactly that. I am not against Expository Preaching, as I do much of it myself. But the Bible nowhere says that that is the preferable method.

BTW, the Galatians did deny the deity of Christ through their denial of God's grace. They completely misunderstood Christ and His purpose for coming. That is why Paul told them they had "fallen from grace".

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Barry...you asked...."Why resort to childishness such as "drama for your mama".

I'm sorry....I didn't realize I was in the presence of such maturity.

You listed the following as "strong churches"..."Willow Creek Community, Saddleback Community, etc....."

Really???? Not my definition of strong churches. More like a perverted gospel.

You stated...."Your book of the month plan would not fit most definitions of expository preaching either."

Which is why I gave the proper definition of expository preaching.

Then you said..."BTW, the Galatians did deny the deity of Christ through their denial of God's grace. They completely misunderstood Christ and His purpose for coming. That is why Paul told them they had "fallen from grace"."

That is one of the finest dances I have seen in a while!!! Did you learn that one from Arthur Murray or Brittany Spears??

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Danny,

Is it possible to have an actual discussion with you, or do you just want to demonstrate your abilities as a smart-aleck? I thought we were all adults here....

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

There you go again Barry....just like you do with E. Lee....instead of answering the objections and the arguments....you choose to in his case....question his Christian love....and in my case....question my maturity.

Is there like a liberal play book somewhere?? Seems like I see those plays an awful lot.

If you want to stick to the subject matter....than do so....without questioning people's love, maturity....etc...etc.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Danny,

I am glad to deal with any objections or arguments you might have. I haven't read any yet -- just childish banter.

BTW, I didn't realize I was a liberal, thanks for pointing that out...SHEEESH

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Barry....if I'm not mistaken....I don't have the corner on pointing that out.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

And really???

It seems to me you didn't answer a single one of E. Lee's arguments or discussions on the SOF thread.

Myself and others had to cover for you.

It sounds to me like you are the one that needs to grow up. Quit picking fights and then running away when the game isn't going your way.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Danny,

E. Lee never made one point worth responding to. It was so out of line with Scripture that I saw no need to waste my time with it.

I am intersted in why you consider me liberal though. Usually, when someone believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, a literal creation account, the virgin birth, sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, like I do, they are not considered a liberal. I guess you have your own definition for that too. Let me guess what it is: anyone who does not agree with Danny on every issue and/or is not as legalistic as he is, is a liberal How am I doing?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Barry,

What's your problem? I did not read Danny's comment about "drama for your momma" as anything against you personally. He was contrasting styles and using colorful language to do so. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

The fact that you would hold up Willowcreek, Southeast, and Saddleback as examples of strong Churches blows me away. Granted, there are lots of people in attendance, but there is at a Reds game as well. Are these "strong Churches" bringing people to Christ or are they being told that they meet the manmade standards of the leaders of these Churches which are foreign to the Scriptures (Mt. 19). When did Willowcreek ever boldly proclaim that a person must repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin? WHen did they BOLDLY proclaim anything? I get some of their literature, I've never seen it.

Deal with the merits of what Danny (and everyone else) has to say, and quit trying to figure out the attitude behind it. I know for a fact that you cannot tell a person's attitude or emotional intent when reading black & white letters on your monitor. Whether or not you're a liberal, I do not know. But you have begun use liberal tactics - ignore the facts and focus on the feelings (accusing Danny of being childish).

And I'll let you know before you think it, I'm not mad at anybody. I'm in a good mood and happy to have the time to sit and catch up on the forum here. I just get tired of people trying to read between the lines of arguments that others make.

To add my take to some of what you stated: what we have given to us in the Scriptures are summaries of sermons, e.g., Acts 2:40 "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation!'" He preached "many other words". Also, Jesus' sermon of the mount is sumarized. Just compare Matthew's account with Luke's. You cannot say they did not preach expositorily. I'm sure they did various methods. Besides that, we have the OT way of teaching which was expository by it's very nature. See Deut 6:4-9.

Also, the proto-gnostics, with which John dealt with in his writings, denied the diety of Jesus outright. After all, how could God, Who is spiritual, and anything to do with the flesh, which is physical? Therefore, Jesus was not God in the true sense. They outright denied it.

The Judaizers accepted Jesus' deity, they wanted to attach the Old Covenant Law to the New Covenant of grace. Your application of Galatians 5:4 is faulty. They did not fall from grace (literally "severed") because they denied Jesus' deity. They fell from grace because they were relying on the Law for their salvation. I understand your reasoning for saying what you did, but it just doesn't hold water.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

A lot was posted while I was typing the last response.

Barry, Anyone who would hold up as "Strong CHurches" the one that you do, I would question his conservatism. You may not be a liberal in the classic use of the word, but it seems as though you are, shall we say, generous, in your consideration of spiritual strength.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Scott,

What's wrong with those churches?

Dr. J

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Paul,

Thanks for your post. It is shameful that we who have the truth are being out-taught by the Muslims. If only our Churches took teaching the Word of Life as seriously as pagans teaching about false gods. I pray you will do well in your upcoming class. Teach in a way that is faithful to II Timothy 2:2. If I have anything that may be of use to you, please do not hesitate to ask. I have a lot of study and reference material linked on it. It is www.cccflorida.org.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Scott,

I read that Valdenson elders used to enter a training school and were required to memorize the book of John and some portions of the epistles. This was during times when Bibles were rare. They would travel and write down scriptures from memory for those they ministered to.

I read in a Sunday school book that Jewish boys used to memorize the Torah, those were the regular Jewish boys the Pharisees thought were not educated.

Today, many Orthodox Jewish children go to sabbath school and learn about their culture, their history as a people, and learn Hebrew.

Couldn't children in churhces gather for several hours a week, memorize books of the Bible, learn Greek and Hebrew, and when they are grown, be more educated than modern seminary graduates? If all Christian churches did this, it would seem normal to us. Perhaps we could divide up books of the Bible among young people, so that in the future, in a church, there will be at least one person in the church who can quote each book of the Bible. That would be beneficial for Chinese house churches, where Bibles are rare as well.

Barry,

Maybe you have a point about verse-by-verse preaching not having a model in the New Testament. But I think there is some kind of basis for it in the Old Testament. Ezra read the Torah in Hebrew, and then the Levites would explain what he said in Aramaic because the people did not understand Hebrew. These Aramaic explanations or paraphrases were called 'targums.'

In later synagogues, I have read that one would read in Hebrew, and another would explain what the speaker said in Aramaic. Synagogue meetings involved someone (in a Greek synagogue) or a group (in a Hebrew synagogue) reading through a passage of scripture. Then someone would preach a sermon on the passage, explaining it. Sometimes, the preacher would have someone explained what he said. Different men from the assembly or traveling rabbis or others could come and preach in synagogues. Teaching was a shared responsibility. Teachers would also answer questions. In Acts, we see there could even be discussion/debate in a synagogue.

The synagogue was something that Jesus participated in. Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll and commented on it that the prophesy was fulfilled that day in their hearing.

Remember that the apostles and the Lord grew up hearing actual Bible _read_ in the meetings. The synagogue read through the Torah on a schedule. Prophets were also read on a schedule. People would go to the synagogue to hear the Law read.

We read in the New Testament that Paul instructed churches to read his letters. He wrote this about Colosi and Laodicia. Paul wrote to Timothy about some wanting to be teachers of the Law. Maybe they read through the Law in church meetings like the Jews did. In the 200's, Christians would meet and hear writings from Paul or other apostles read to them.

Teaching verse by verse allows people to hear the Bible read, and also hear teaching on it. So I believe it is a good method.

What did the Christians do in church in the Bible days? They did more than hear the Law read. They would sing, teach, share revelations, give messages in tongues and interpretation. There were men like Agabus who prophesied and predicted the future. One thing he said in a meeting was that there was going to be a famine. Paul talks about some in Rome having a gift of exhortation. We have to think about all these things when we think of what the early Christians did in their meetings. Many were Jews or Gentiles who spent time in the synagogue, so they knew about reading the Old Testament and teaching it, too.

Verse-by-verse Bible study is a good thing. But it is not the only thing. Paul wanted the churches to speak for exhorting, comforting, and edifying. That might not always be a verse-by-verse teaching method.

But, if a church only hears 'drama for your mama' as the other man said, every week, and only one Bible verse, they will not have a balanced diet. Christians need to know about the different books of the Bible and what they say. This should be a big part of a Christian's diet.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

Scott,

I was reacting to Danny's sarcastic, and completely unnecessary remarks. I was upholding Expository Preaching as a model, but pointing out that there was nothing inherently biblical about it in the sense that it is not modeled for us. I can't see how he could draw "drama for your mama" out of what I had to say.

Also, you wrote: The fact that you would hold up Willowcreek, Southeast, and Saddleback as examples of strong Churches blows me away. Granted, there are lots of people in attendance, but there is at a Reds game as well. Are these "strong Churches" bringing people to Christ or are they being told that they meet the manmade standards of the leaders of these Churches which are foreign to the Scriptures (Mt. 19). When did Willowcreek ever boldly proclaim that a person must repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin? WHen did they BOLDLY proclaim anything? I get some of their literature, I've never seen it.

Willow Creek has one of the boldest witnesses for Christ in the U.S.A. I was there last year when they showed video of the 900 baptisms (by immersion). I was at their "Seeker Service" when Bill Hybels spoke on the Cross and the need to accept Christ as Lord. The same could be said for Saddleback and Southeast. I am taking my entire eldership and their wives with me this year for the Leadership Conference at Willow Creek. They are closer to the Acts model than any church I am aware of in the RM and Bill Hybels is an excellent biblical preacher.

Most critics of these churches either haven't taken the time to really check them out, or are simply jealous or so sectarian (as are many in the RM) that they are not willing to admit that God can work outside of the box they've tried to put Him in.

If applauding the many conversions and continued growth of these churches is liberal, I'm about as liberal as they come.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

The last line of my last post is supposed to say:

I have a lot of study and reference materials on our Churches web site with many resources linked on it. It is www.cccflorida.org.

"Dr. J"

Why dont you tell me? ;o)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Paul,

I am in complete agreement with your post. If you'll reread my initial post you'll notice that I was in no way being derogatory toward expository preaching.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry,

Were the baptisms for the forgiveness of sin? Having read some of the material from Willowcreek, I seriously doubt it. Of course, most sects practice baptism but their Calvinistic blinders will not allow the reason for baptism be taught. I have seen this to be true of Willowcreek in their literature.

The reason for baptism is just as important as the mode by which it was performed.

I do not consider myself sectarian, but if upholding the truth of Scripture without compromise or embarassment on the plan of salvation is sectarian, then I'm as sectarian as they come. And jeolousy is not in me.

I would also add, that you and I definitely have different concepts of "excellent." Danny, Jim, Michael, et al are excellent preachers of the Word. They do it without compromise or shame. What I read from the people & places you reference is little more than pablum. I do not consider that as "excellent." I'm not trying to be mean here, but I am as serious as I can be. The points that Paul brings out should give cause for repentance, not promoting more of this kind of sugar- coated pseudo-gospel.

I would be very interested as to WHY those 900 were immersed. If it was for forgiveness of sin as per Acts 2:38, Praise God. If not, I will pray that someone will explain to them the Gospel.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Brethren:

AS you can see, and any thinking person in this forum could have easily predicted, if anyone was going to be against “expository preaching” it would be those, like Brother Davis, whose doctrines are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. But let us examine what he has to say:

He begins by extolling the virtues of expository preaching and how he was taught to do it. And he does this because he wants to avoid the charge that he is in reality opposed to it as follows:

“Hi, E. Lee has made an argument for Expository Preaching.”

E. Lee Saffold has indeed made an argument in favor of expository preaching and Brother Davis is writing to oppose that argument. But he begins by admitting that expository preaching is good as follows:

“ I agree that Expository preaching is effective and is very helpful in teaching us the "whole counsel of God". In Bible College (Ozark Christian College) I was taught that this was really the only acceptable form of preaching.”

We are more than pleased that Brother Davis agrees with us that expository preaching is “helpful” in teaching us the “whole counsel of God”. That alone makes it extremely valuable and justifies our contention that we need more of it and less of the pathetic "sermons" preached using the Sunday morning news as a “text”!

Then he says:

“Since I've been out of school I've done quite a bit of study in this area.”

AS far as what I have seen from Brother Davis in this forum he has done very “little study” in any area. And he does not demonstrate very much knowledge of this “area of study” in his comments concerning in this post, as we shall see from what he says next about it:

“ The problem is,”

Now note this phrase, brethren. This is where he begins his opposition to expository preaching. All that he has said up to this time was designed to protect him from the charge of being against it! Ha! This tactic is not new, is it? He makes sure that he says some good words in support of the concepts that he opposes so that he can have a way of escape should he be pursued aggressively by anyone who will counter his opposition, which he intends to bring against them.

Then he states the problem:

“I don't find anything close to Expository Preaching in the Bible.”

There it is folks. Brother Davis’ bold opposition to expository preaching of the word of God. He is opposed to it or as he says has a “problem” with it because he cannot find anything “close to expository preaching in the Bible. Now mark it Brethren he thinks that there was no expository preaching in the Bible and therefore people of the book cannot follow the teaching of the book if they preach in this way.

Then he offers support for his nonsense as follows:

“ In fact, it is almost all topical/textual.”

Now notice here that he supports his above assertion with yet another mere assertion, neither, of which he has offered one single shred of evidence to support as being true. He contends that most of the preaching in the Bible is “topical and textual”. But where is the proof of it? And even if this were true it would not negate the need for and scriptural authority of preaching expository lessons. For if we can find one example of expository preaching in the scriptures it would be scriptural and right to do it.

Then he says:

“In addition, especially the preaching of Jesus, is more inductive than deductive. If we are a "People of the Book" why do we emphasize something that is not modeled in the Book?”

Now notice this brethren. Brother Davis may return to claim that he was not opposed to expository preaching in this post but notice what he has said. He says that “if we are a people of the book” then why do we “emphasis something that is NOT MODELED IN THE BOOK”. Now he told us in the beginning that it was good to preach expository lessons. But now he wants to imply that it would be bad for us and inconsistent with our claim of being a people of the book if we "emphasize” the PREACHING OF THE BOOK in this GOOD WAY! How ignorant can one be?

Now let us look at his claim. Did Jesus Christ our Lord ever preach in an expository way?

“And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?” ) (Luke 4:15-22).

Now Brethren this is a model of Jesus preaching in the method of reading from the scripture and then giving and explanation of its meaning. And this passage says it was “His custom” to do this. Notice that the Scroll of Isaiah was given to him. He read from it and many gracious words proceeded out of his mouth concerning it. I know that because we have recorded the portion of scripture that he read so would say this is a “textual sermon” and not expository. But this would be nothing more than a foolish and pathetic quibble. For the concept of expository preaching and the “taking of a text” upon which one would explain the word of God is very mild difference. If we take every passage in the word of God and read it, sit down and explain it and speak many gracious words concerning it then we will have done what Jesus surely modeled for us. And when one does expository preaching he does just what Christ did here. He reads a portion of the scriptures and then many “gracious words concerning it proceeds from the preachers mouth. Call it what you will but in this place Jesus modeled what happens in expository preaching. And only an idiot would fail to see it.

And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem [about] threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together] and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications [are] these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found [it] even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:13-32).

Now, Brethren notice a few things about this passage in relation to this subject. We are told that “beginning with Moses and all the prophets he EXPOUNDED to them in ALL THE SCIPTURES the things concerning himself”. Now look at this word “expounded” for a moment. That word “expounded is from the Greek term “diermeneuo {dee-er-main- yoo'-o} to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language. Now in this context it is obvious that Christ was not “translating the scriptures for these men but rather that the word is being used in it’s primary meaning of unfolding the meaning of what is said, explaining, or expounding upon”. Thus while talking with these men on the road to Emmaus Jesus Christ the son of God modeled what happens when one gives an “exposition” of a passage of scripture. He explains it and unfolds it meaning for us. So, Jesus Christ modeled for us in this place the concept of expository teaching of the scriptures. And this passage shows the response to such teaching of the scriptures in the human heart. They said, “did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures”. (Luke 24:32). Now let us look at the meaning of the word “opened” in this verse. It is from the Greek term “dianoigo {dee-an-oy'-go}” which means, “1) to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly (what had been closed) 1a) a male opening the womb (the closed matrix), i.e. the first-born 1b) of the eyes and the ears 1c) to open the mind of one, i.e. to cause to understand a thing 1c1) to open one's soul, i.e. to rouse in one the faculty of understanding or the desire of learning.” And since this passage says that he “opened” (dianoigo) the scriptures to them then it should be quite clear that he “caused the understanding of them”. This is what is done when one gives an exposition of a portion of scripture. So again we have Christ, shortly after his resurrection the concept of expounding upon the scriptures and explaining them so that they are understood or giving an exposition of them. And if Brother Davis had heard more expository preaching and had done more of it himself he would not make these egregious errors concerning them now would he!? For he has claimed that giving expositions of the scriptures is not modeled in the word of God. And that the preaching of Jesus Christ was not of this sort. And we had effectively show that he is miserably ignorant of the fact that the word of God gives examples of Jesus Christ himself reading from the scriptures, expounding upon them and opening up their meaning to his disciples and in the synagogue. SO, it is clear that Brother Davis doe “err not knowing the scriptures” doesn’t he?

Then he says:

“I think it is necessary to understand our audience.”

No one denies this. But “understanding our audience” is one thing and “catering to their whims, wants and entertaining them and “tickling their ears with what they desire to hear is another all together.

Then he says:

“ For some, Expository preaching will best get the message across, for others, a topical and/or an iductive approach will work best.”

No one has denied this either. But the failure to preach the word of God is a sin! For we are commanded to “preach the word” and those who are merely entertaining their audiences and "taking a text to use as a pretext by ignoring the context in order to preach what the people expect” is against Christ and disrespectful to His word. The failure here is seen in the results obtained by failing to “preach the whole counsel of God” caused by the kind of [preaching that which we have describe above which is surely condemned in the scriptures.

Then he says:

“ Whatever technique is used, it is certainly not a "Thus saith the Lord".”

Oh, this is where he is very wrong. For we have shown a “thus saith the lord” for both expository preaching, modeled by our Lord himself and textual preaching. All of which is also seen in the Sermon on the Mount. And topical preaching seen in the parables and other places such as the sermon given by Peter in Acts 2 and the sermon preached by Steven in Acts seven which gave an excellent exposition of several passages of scripture and the sermon of Paul on Mars Hill. All of this amounts to a thus saith the lord for the kind of preaching that he wants us to do. What we do not have a thus saith the lord for is the preaching which is common, all too common, in pulpits today. Which is nothing more than entertainment intended to satisfy the audience rather than convict them of sin, urging them to repent and obey the gospel and teaching and explaining the meaning of the word of God for them. Now that has no authority from the Lord. But expository preaching, textual preaching and even topical preaching, if the topic is discussed in the light of what the word of God has to say about the topic are all scriptural. And we surely have a “thus saith the Lord” in Command, example and necessary inferences throughout the New Testament for all of them. And of all of those methods it is a shame that a “people of the book” would neglect the explaining of that book which is found in expository teaching of it. And Brother Davis should be ashamed of his opposition to it. Now I know that he will now come back to deny that he is opposed to it. But his post proves otherwise. He is opposed to it for such preaching would make the people aware of the truth and his false doctrines which he has sought to teach in this forum would whither away in the presence of such teaching. And he just cannot bear that thought, now can he?

Brethren, let us be a people of the book and let us turn away from men like brother Davis who is opposed to our being a people of the book. Get out there and follow the example of our Lord and “open the scriptures” explain, expound upon them constantly. And one of the most effective means of doing this is to preach in an expository way, which means to preach so as to explain and give the meaning of the word of God.

I have made an argument for expository preaching and Brother Davis attempted in a feeble way to make some argument against it. But he has failed miserably to support his false notion that there is no “thus saith the Lord” for such preaching. For, as we have shown there most certainly is a “thus saith the Lord about it”.

So, yes, as Brother Davis has said, “E. Lee has made an argument for Expository Preaching.” For indeed he has and Brother Davis cannot answer the argument now can he?

Now, can we get back to the suggestion that we take up the exposition of the various books of the Bible in this forum?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry you stated...."Let me guess what it is: anyone who does not agree with Danny on every issue and/or is not as legalistic as he is, is a liberal How am I doing?"

How are you doing?? As per your record on the forum so far....way out in left field...(and I do mean "left" field).

This board is full of people with whom I disagree on a number of issues. Did you not read the friendly discussion/debate between myself and E. Lee?? Do I consider him wrong on the issue?? Yep!! Does he consider me wrong?? Yep!!! Do I consider him a liberal because he doesn't agree with me. Hardly.

Scott Sheridan is another one. Scott and I disagree on a number of issues. But that's OK. I can allow Scott to be wrong and still consider him a brother!!! :)

The list could go on Jim Spinnati, John Wilson, Robin Cornell...etc.

But one thing these men have in common......and most I consider conservative to have in common....is at least they can get the simple plan of salvation right!!!

They don't feel the need to dance around the issue of baptism. I mean....what part of Acts 2:38 is so difficult to understand??

Baptism if FOR....TOWARDS....IN ORDER TO RECEIVE the forgiveness of sins.

It is not just an act of obedience.....which is what you accept from peope you are trying to squeeze into the doors of your church so you can produce another "Willowed" Creek.

You never hear these men feeling apologetic for the RM's historic stance on baptism.

You seem to suggest from your posts that "numbers mean God's blessing."

Really.....are we to assume the Mormon's to be "God blessed" since they build an average of 2.5 churches per week.

Keep in mind, the church the Lord has the greatest commendation for in the book of Revelation....was the church that smallest in number.

No Barry it has nothing to do with agreeing with me. But what bothers myself, and others who are conservative.....it the amount of ground you give up for numbers.

Really....with the positions you take....why do you even consider yourself a part of the RM when so much of what you do is anti- thetical to RM historic positions??

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Davis says in this thread that which he did not have the courage to say in the treads to which he refers. And, as is his usual habit, he offers nothing more than a mere assertion without even attempting to prove that his assertion is true with any credible evidence whatsoever.

He has said:

“E. Lee never made one point worth responding to. It was so out of line with Scripture that I saw no need to waste my time with it.”

Now, Brother Davis claims that “ E. Lee never made one point worth responding to”. But then he says that what E. Lee said in his discussions with Brother Davis was “so out of line with scripture” which would mean that it was incredibly false doctrine and contrary to the doctrine of Christ. But even though he perceived that it was so diametrically opposed to the doctrine of Christ in the scriptures he “saw no need” to “waste” his time with it! Now think about this, Brethren. If it were true that E. Lee was teaching something so out of harmony with the truth would it not be worth a Christian’s time to defend against something so false? HA! All that Brother Davis demonstrates with this statement is that the more false a position is the less time he has to resist it! But the closer it is to the truth the more time he has to resist it!

Now he has offered no proof that the things that I said in the thread to which he refers was in any way whatsoever out of harmony with the truth of God’s word. But even if it were he would not take the time to defend the truth against what he perceived to be such an egregious error.

The truth of the matter is that Brother Davis was met with arguments from the word of God that he cannot answer and he admits that he has thus far FAILED to answer them. And his excuse for not responding to them is that they are so out of line with the scriptures that they deserved no response. Brethren, when anyone teaching anything out of harmony with the scripture we are commanded to contend with them. “Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And the apostle Paul always had time to defend the gospel. For he said, “But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.” (Phil. 1:17) And again Paul referred to this “striving for the faith of the gospel” by saying, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;” (Phil. 1:27). But, when Brother Davis sees someone he perceives is teaching “out of line with the scriptures” he does not see any “need to waste his time with it”. If this is true then he is guilty of refusing to defend the truth when he sees an opportunity to do so because he sees defended the truth as a “waste of his time”. Now, we can understand why false teachers would find “defending the truth” a “waste of their time” but we cannot conceive of how any Christian would think in this way. For the church is the “pillar and ground (or support) of the TRUTH. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15). How different is Brother Davis from the apostle Paul in this regard. For when Paul saw that Peter spoke contrary to the truth he did not consider it a “waste of time” to resist him. For we are told, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” (Gal. 5:2). He would not allow even one hour to be given to that which was contrary to the truth. SO, if Brother Davis really thought that what I had said was contrary to the scriptures then he would not, if he were faithful to the truth, have considered it a “waste of time” to resist such teaching.

But the facts are that Brother Davis cannot show that what E. Lee said was “out of line” with the scriptures and therefore did not do so. And if he found it to be out of line with the scriptures and yet considered it a waste of his time to defend the truth then he is not very interested in the progress of truth and the refutation of error, now is he? We have shown that his doctrines are contrary to the truth and he has proven with his above statement that he has little time or concern about what is true. And this is characteristic of false teachers. They avoid controversy especially when they cannot answer the arguments put to them. Brother Davis is no exception to this rule.

If anyone wishes to claim that E. Lee was teaching “out of line” with the scriptures then do so by proving that such is the case and none would appreciate it more than E. Lee Saffold himself. But to merely assert that such is the case while simultaneously refusing to consider that it is worthy of your time to prove that such is the case and correct the error is merely a useless response which is nothing short of pretentious. Beware of such men, brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Brother Davis:

You told Brother Paul the following:

“I am in complete agreement with your post. If you'll reread my initial post you'll notice that I was in no way being derogatory toward expository preaching.”

But his post was in response to yours and in opposition to it. For you said:

“The problem is, I don't find anything close to Expository Preaching in the Bible.”

But Brother Paul’s post, with which you claim to be in “complete agreement” demonstrate in a very able and correct way that there are several examples of “expository preaching” in the Bible. And I appreciate his excellent response. But your only response was to pretend to agree with him. If you do agree with him then you should be honest enough to reject and renounce your original statements that you cannot find “anything close to expository preaching” in the Bible.

But so long as you hold that view you cannot be doing anything short of lying when you claim to have agreed “COMPLETELY” with Brother Paul’s post.

Brethren notice that false teachers are given to lying in this way. They want you to think that they are agreeing with you completly while simultaneously undermining and contemptiously despising the very postion that they pretended to agree with. Beware of such men, Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Hi Danny,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I dance around the issue of baptism?? I've been entirely consistent on my view of baptism and it is in line with what the majority of the RM teaches. Even if it was not, I am confident that it is in line with what Scripture teaches.

Also, I do not equate numbers alone with God's blessing. The Mormons teach a blatantly false gospel, Willow Creek does not. I have been there, I have heard them speak, I have worshipped with them, and can say firsthand that they believe in, and teach, the Deity of Jesus Christ. No, they do not say baptism is necessary for salvation, and neither does most of the Christian world. The fact is, they do baptize. I know you don't agree with me on this position, but it in no way means that I don't personally agree with baptism. I do think it has been overemphasized by our more legalistic friends. But to dismiss numbers as if they are unimportant is to skip over all the numbers God recorded for us in the book of Acts. If a church is in the will of God it will grow in numbers.

You ask why I stay in the RM if I am in such disagreement with it. Well, the fact is, your position on not accepting the baptism of those of the so-called "faith only" position is much more in the minority than my position. Majority does not make a thing right, but according to your own logic, you should consider leaving the RM, as most do not agree with your position. You take an extremist position which I am quickly learning seems to be the position of some who teach at FCC. I have been around the RM a long time -- my father was a preacher in the RM for 34 years until his death. My brother-in-law is the Academic Dean at CBCS. My brother is a professor at Kansas Christian College. I earned two undergradate degrees at Ozark and a Master's at Johnson. I have been preaching for 15 years in the RM. I have been to the Restoration Forum, North American, Missionary Convention, and the Preaching Convention in Indianapolis (the name escapes but it is the one put on by Jeff Faull). This all said to simply point out the fact that I am well aware of what is going on in the RM and I know for a fact that most hold to the same position that I do. Chris DeWelt did extensive research into the beliefs of RM preachers a few years ago for his Master's project. A summary of the results was published in the Christian Standard. I don't have a copy anymore, but I think you would find that those who hold a Bousman- mentality are few and far between.

I am curious, has there been anything I have mentioned, in your view, other than this point on baptism, that is out of line with traditional RM thinking? Even if I was wrong with everything I've stated in the above paragraph, would this position make me outside the RM? Hardly. You seem to forget that this is the movement that was big enough for both Campbell and Stone who were diametrically opposed on a number of issues. And if you want a much more radical view than what I have stated concerning baptism, see Campbell's Lunenburg Letter on the pious unimmersed.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Hi Scott,

I put your quotes in italics.

You asked Were the baptisms for the forgiveness of sin? Having read some of the material from Willowcreek, I seriously doubt it.

No, they do not emphasize this, but they do emphasize being baptism in following the model of Christ and out of obedience to His command.

Of course, most sects practice baptism but their Calvinistic blinders will not allow the reason for baptism be taught. I have seen this to be true of Willowcreek in their literature.

Willow Creek is hardly Calvinistic. If you have some Calvinistic quotes from this literature I'd like to see it.

The reason for baptism is just as important as the mode by which it was performed.

Where does the Bible state this?

I would also add, that you and I definitely have different concepts of "excellent." Danny, Jim, Michael, et al are excellent preachers of the Word. They do it without compromise or shame. What I read from the people & places you reference is little more than pablum. I do not consider that as "excellent." I'm not trying to be mean here, but I am as serious as I can be. The points that Paul brings out should give cause for repentance, not promoting more of this kind of sugar- coated pseudo-gospel.

I have heard more hard core Bible preaching from Willow Creek than I have from Ed Bousman. There is no way you could actually have listened to them and make this kind of statement. They emphasize the Cross, Resurrection, and Deity of Jesus Christ.

I would be very interested as to WHY those 900 were immersed. If it was for forgiveness of sin as per Acts 2:38, Praise God. If not, I will pray that someone will explain to them the Gospel.

Baptism is not the Gospel -- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is (see 1 Cor. 15)

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry....

To present yourself as the mainstream of the RM...is indeed...a misrepresentation. For every person you name....I could name dozens more who would disagree with you on the issue of baptism. Hasn't this forum alone demonstrated that??? I am also aware of numerous churches that if you stated your position on baptism "up front" and "candidly"....you would not be called to serve that church.

I would love to discuss the Lunenburg Letter with you as it is a favorite letter of those who practice revisionist Restoration history. I will do it on another thread, however, when I get time.

There is a great deal of truth to what you say, however, concerning the sickly state of our movement....which is exactly why a number have been predicting for a few years now....another split is inevitable....and in fact....there are already the beginnings of that division being seen.

Sad?? Yes indeed. But the fact is....the clearest way to split a church and/or a movement....is false doctrine.

Yes....FCC in the past has had a reputation of being strong in the Scriptures and being ready to "contend" for the faith once delivered. For that, I am honored to have attended there. I can't speak for now....as I'm not aware of what is going on there at this time. For all I know...there may be a number on the faculty who agree with you.

I am happy to say....that the faculty of the school where I am currently teaching.....would vehemently be in disagreement with you.

So again....quoting names....means nothing to me.

Truth stands on its own merits....not the names you can put behind it.

I'm really sad to hear what you say about Ed Bousman....one of the finest men and finest preachers of the gospel that I have ever had the priviledge of hearing in my life.

God help us to raise more preachers who appreciate the kind of man he is.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

I'm really curious what you guys have against Southeast Christian in Louisville.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

No, they do not say baptism is necessary for salvation, and neither does most of the "Christian world." The fact is, they do baptize.

They are not Christians until they have obeyed the termws of pardon. Danny is right, you are no longer in left field you are out of the stadium.

You asked Were the baptisms for the forgiveness of sin? Having read some of the material from Willowcreek, I seriously doubt it.

No, they do not emphasize this, but they do emphasize being baptism in following the model of Christ and out of obedience to His command.

SHAME!!!!

I think I'm getting sick. If this is the Lord's church, then the Lord needs another. Willow Creek and the rest that were mentioned stand on quick sand. They wouldn't know the gospel if it came down the road with a hat on! If getting in the water gets one saved then most everyone is.

{You ask why I stay in the RM if I am in such disagreement with it. Well, the fact is, your position on not accepting the baptism of those of the so-called "faith only" position is much more in the minority than my position. Majority does not make a thing right, but according to your own logic, you should consider leaving the RM, as most do not agree with your position. You take an extremist position which I am quickly learning seems to be the position of some who teach at FCC. I have been around the RM a long time -- my father was a preacher in the RM for 34 years until his death. My brother-in-law is the Academic Dean at CBCS. My brother is a professor at Kansas Christian College.

{My Uncle is in the Mafia, so what?}

This all said to simply point out the fact that I am well aware of what is going on in the RM and I know for a fact that most hold to the same position that I do.

Chris DeWelt did extensive research into the beliefs of RM preachers a few years ago for his Master's project. A summary of the results was published in the Christian Standard. I don't have a copy anymore, but I think you would find that those who hold a Bousman- mentality are few and far between.

That just proves to me how far gone the Movement is. Hey, wouldn't it be different if we just get back to the Bible? Besides I like this Bousman mentality!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry,

Wow. You are amazing. You slam godly men who contend earnestly for the faith, like Ed Bousman, and then lift up men who have probably not obeyed the Gospel themselves nor do they teach it. BTW, Since you are so impressed with numbers, Ed Bousman preaches to more people globally than you could possibly imagine. And he's been doing it longer than Willowcreek and Southeast combined. Shame on you!

You put me in mind of Ahab in I Kings 22. Jehoshaphat asked for a prophet but Ahab didn't want a true prophet because the true one didn't say what he wanted to hear. He wanted an ear tickler. To paraphrase a NT verse, "I recognize Alexander Campbell, and I know about Ed Bousman, but who are you?" You've got nerve, I'll grant you that.

Next time I receive the mailing from Willowcreek I will withhold from depositing it in the can for awhile and point out the manifold Calvinistic statements it contains. Faith-only theology is at it's foundation Calvinistic.

Yes the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but you must enter into a covenant relationship before it has effect upon you, Baptism is the point in which a person enters that covenant. You may get cutesy with my wording about baptism and the Gospel, but in the meantime, Satan is using his angel of lights to keep people from entering the covenant. Let me make it clear. If baptism is the point in time that I enter the covenant, and I can be convinced that it is not and am not immersed or I am immersed for another reason, then I do not enter that relationship. No matter what I may think about myself or God, I am not benefitted by the Gospel until I enter the covenant on God's terms.

As for needing to know where the Bible states the importance of the purpose of baptism read Acts 19. Paul met some fellas that had already been immersed, but not to have their sins forgiven. Paul baptised them again into the New Covenant. Say whatever you will about that passage, they were baptised a second time because the reason for the first one wasn't correct.

Besides, if the purpose has no bearing, then maybe the RC way is correct. Let's baptise babies so later they won't have to be. If they come to faith then they can say they were already baptised.

Danny,

The split has already occurred. It simply has not been officially recognised - whoever does that kind of thing "officially." You have the "Russellites" on one side and the (Barry inspired me for this one) "Bousmanites" on the other. The "Russellites" don't care what sectarian name or doctrine a person carries but the "Bousmanites" only want to be known as Christian. That and nothing else.

Compromise is the fashion of the day, but the days are evil. Brethren, Contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. That message has not changed and it need not be robbed of it's power by the compromise of cheap grace and easy beliefism. Hey E. Lee! If you have never heard Ed Bousman preach go to www.gijapa.org and listen to him on realaudio. George Faull also has sermons to listen to at www.summit1.edu. Check them out. You'll like them.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Boy Guys,

You are something else! I didn't say anything derogatory about Ed Bousman. Here is the exact quote: I have heard more hard core Bible preaching from Willow Creek than I have from Ed Bousman. I was simply pointing out that Willow Creek is strong in preaching the bible -- actually stronger than what I've heard from Bousman. I didn't say Bousman didn't preach the gospel or that he wasn't an excellent communicator! You guys are great at twisting words.

Also, how can we split something that supposedly doesn't exist? Unless you are admitting, and if you are you are correct, that the Christian Church is as much a denomination as the rest. It was not when it was started, but thanks to the sectarianism of men like some posting here, it has become one.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Scott, Robin, Danny, et. al.,

I am just curious as to how much a person has to know about baptism before it becomes efficient for their salvation? Do I have to be baptized every time I learn more about it? Where does the Bible clearly state or imply that one has to know baptism is for the remission of sins before it will take effect?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Danny,

E. Lee denies the clear apostolic teaching about the sinful nature of man. This is not an opinion issue, it is as clear as day. Is he a false teacher? By your criteria, he is. Why not come right out and say it -- you have no trouble doing it with others.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry,

I think your question about baptism and how much knowledge is a legitimate one and it ahs a simple answer. But you should use it to start another thread. The sheriff probably won't allow it on this one.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry.....

Your comments about George Faull and Summit Theological Seminary......were way out of bounds.....as well as coming extremely close to libel.

For your sake....since he occassionally lurks here....I hope it was removed before he saw it.

If you can't do any better than that Barry.....your credibility just took an extreme nosedive.

George Faull has done as much if not more than most Bible colleges to get people in the pew....into the Word.

Barry, I do appreciate you for one thing. People in my church....and people in my classes sometimes doubt people like you exist.

Now they have proof.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

I dont know about that one Danny.

If Barry is so strongly against George and Summit, anyone reading here would come to the conclusion that they both must be extremely Biblically sound. That would be my impression. Besides, you deleted my posts as well - I'm hurt ;o(

I didn't know until earlier this evening some of the things he had stated on other threads. I'll say it again, he amazes me.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Once again,

Re; Summit from someone who has been there and done that. Barry, you are ignorant. I learned more from my classes at Summit than I did in many years at what you would consider "credible" colleges. You simply do not have a clue. I had to work harder to earn a grade than I ever did at FCC or CBC&S. FCC and CBC&S accept Summit credits on their own merits if someone wishes to transfer. In my opinion though, that would be a step down. If you're after the accredidation and "prestige" of a big name college, do not go to Summit. If you want the knowledge Summit's where you want to go.

This from the guy who holds up Willowcreek as a doctrinally strong Church. Funny stuff.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

For the benefit of my FCC buddies let me clarify. Summit forces you to study things through by it's very nature. The claases are often overseen by men like Jack Cottrell, Sherwood Smith (I believe), and others. I had the privilege of having Dean Mills as one of my teachers. George uses quite a lot of Chambers materials through tapes. Summit has the ability of getting some of the best men in the brotherhood, that are spread out among many states and colleges, to teach for the students at Summit.

When I mentioned it would be a step down, what I meant was not intended as a slight against the Bourne's and Smith's of FCC. It is a step down in intensity of study.

Because I absolutley had to know the material, I have retained so much more.

Barry is just ignorant of the facts.

Jim Spinnati has also started a school of quality called the Sunshine School of Evangelism. But it's for people who are more impressed with knowledge than prestige. Barry probably wouldn't like it.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry,

In one word - Walston's guide is good for nothing more than toilet paper!!! I'm working through Summit right now to finish my degree and I've had to work my fool head off, and I'm still losing ground.

This is one (of apparently many) circumstances where it would have been better for you to remain quit & thought a fool instead of opening your mouth & proving it!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Barry,

I don't appreciate you downing Brother Faull. As Scott said you don't know very much about him or the school. In a post previous you mentioned Jeff Faull, and praised him. I wonder who his father is? George is one of the great teachers of our time.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

I can't speak for the Wiz, but I said it before and it got deleted.

I am not offended, just amused.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

“Danny,

E. Lee denies the clear apostolic teaching about the sinful nature of man.”

There is no clear apostolic teaching that man is a “SINNER BY NATURE” as your fallacious creed teaches. And you have been given ample opportunity to prove that there is such teaching and you have failed miserably to even make an attempt to do so. On the other hand, at least Brother Danny attempted to correct what he perceived as being error on my part. He and I still disagree. But I respect him because he at least tried to respond to my argument and made a noble effort to correct my perceived errors. And though I am not convince that he is right he atleast offered reasons and arguments that I had to think about. But you on the other hand did nothing whatsoever to respond to my areguments and numerous questions which I asked you about the subject. SO, I challenge you yet again to return to that thread where the subject is being discussed and take up my arguments and see if you can do a better Job that Brother Danny did in responding to me about it. I do very much doubt that you can even approach the effort that he made.

Then you say:

“ This is not an opinion issue, it is as clear as day.”

This is true. And it is as clear as day that your creed which claims that we are sinners by nature is contrary to the truth. But if you would like to prove otherwise I await your response to my arguments in that thread. For this is not the subject of this thread, now is it?

Then you say:

“ Is he a false teacher?”

If I am wrong, which has not yet been proven, then though I might be sincerely in error, I would be teaching that which is false. And doing so would make me a false teacher who needs desperately to be corrected. But you have said that you do not want to “waste time” with such activity. But Brother Danny loves the truth and he cares about his Brother E. Lee Saffold and because of this love of his brother he at least TOOK THE TIME to attempt to correct what he perceived to be my error. This is nobel and right. But you on the other hand do not consider anyone to be a false teacher unless he denies the deity of Christ. And therefore according to you I would not be a false teacher for I haved not denied the deity of Christ. And for that reason you could care less about how many false doctrines I might otherwise teach wither out of sincerity or delberate intent to lead souls away from Christ in the service of my own desires and ambitions. False doctrine is not some thing that “concerns you” now is it? For by your own words you have proven such to be the case, haven’t you. For according to you so long as I do not deny the deity of Christ I can believe and teach anything else that I want to teach and still not be considered a false teacher. I thank God for men like Brother Danny who cares about the truth and seeks to correct those whom he is convinced are opposed to it. And if Brother Danny and I were to ever settle this matter we would do so based upon the teaching of the word of God after possibly months or even years of discussion, controversy and even a few harsh words. But men like you would never even attemp to correct me if I were in error. You could care less, according to your own words. For according to you my arguments were not “worty of yout time and attention”. You should be ashamed of such hypocracy. And your present effort to make it appear that Brother Danny is failing because he has not bothered to call me a “false teacher” outright is just pathetic. But anyone teaching that which is false is a false teacher. And if Brother Danny should prove to my satisfaction from the scriptures that I am teaching anything false I would immediately repent for “being a false teacher” and teaching that which was contrary to the doctrine of Christ. For such is not ever my intent. But you would not even attempt to compell a false teacher to turn from his pernicious ways unless he were teaching against the deity of Christ. All other false doctrine you tolerate rather than abhor! This cannot be said of Brother Danny.

Then you say:

“ By your criteria, he is. Why not come right out and say it -- you have no trouble doing it with others.” You are very nieve if you think that Brother Danny would never call me a false teacher as he has others who have taught error. For I know that he would. And it may be that he has come to know me well enough to know that I would not ever deliberately teach that which is false that he is trying to correct me before he decides that it is necessary to call me a "false teacher". But you can rest assure that he believes that if I am teaching false doctrien that I am a false teacher and the fact that I might be sincere does not change the truth of that matter in the least. And when some one says that you are teaching contrary to the word of God they are saying that you are a false teacher. And Brother Danny has done that much with kindness because I am convinced that he believes that I would not do such a thing intentionally. But make no mistake about it. Brother Danny would not hesitate to do what must be doen and say what must be said to resist false doctrine from any source.

Your Brother in Christ, E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

E. Lee,

So then you clearly believe Danny is a false teacher since you believe he teaches falsely on the sin nature?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have asked us all, including myself the following:

“Scott, Robin, Danny, et. al., I am just curious as to how much a person has to know about baptism before it becomes efficient for their salvation? Do I have to be baptized every time I learn more about it? Where does the Bible clearly state or imply that one has to know baptism is for the remission of sins before it will take effect?”

Now, in doing this you not only deliberately stray from the subject of this thread but you pretend that this question has not been asked by you before and that you have not been answered concerning it. We answered you the first time that you asked this ignorant question and you ignored our answers and did not respond to a single word that we said in reply to your question. There have been two threads addressing this very question because you have asked it. And you have deliberately ignored the arguments made in reply to you concerning this subject in both of those threads.

Therefore, I have started a new thread entitled “repentance and Baptism are for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)” And in that thread I have copied and pasted several post that were written in response to your question about this matter in the tread which you started concerning it. And also from the thread that Brother Robin started concerning the same subject, all of which you deliberately ignored. And now you come in here asking the question yet again with the highest hope that everyone has forgotten those arguments that were put to you previously, which you could not answer. And that we would not respond to your question because we are tied of our responses being ignored and then you could have free reign to teach you lies about this subject unchallenged. Well, Brother Davis’ this common tactic of false teachers is not going to work.

Now, if you really wish to discuss this subject then go to that thread which we started and begin by answering the arguments which have already been given twice now in response to your question and which you have failed to even attempt to answer. Otherwise just admit that you have no reply and cannot answer the arguments and stop asking us to respond when all you intend to do is ignore everything that is said to you concerning it. If you have any convictions on this subject then have some courage and come out and discuss them. But do not continue to pretend that you are just now bringing up the subject. For that is a deliberate attempt at deception and such is a lie.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brethren:

Notice this other Tactic taken from the “playbook" of the unfaithful men among us like Brother Davis. In an effort to “divide” and gender strife among Brethren. Brother Davis seeks to get Brother Danny and I attacking one another. So that he can stand back and pretend to be superior and to teach his false doctrines unchallenged while we are busy fighting one another. For this reason he has now twice sought to get Brother Danny and I calling one another “false teachers”. Ha! How evil is this man? But we will answer his foolish and ignorant question but he need not think that we will leave him alone to teach his lies with no response to them for that will not happen.

He has asked:

“E. Lee, So then you clearly believe Danny is a false teacher since you believe he teaches falsely on the sin nature? “

Indeed I do as much as he believes the same about me. For I believe that what he is teaching about that subject to be false and have said as much and he believes the same concerning me and has said as much. But you have not done anything to join that conversation, other than to start it and cowardly run away. But Brother Danny and I are brothers in Christ and for this very reason we are willing to discuss the matter to correct what we consider to be errors. I do not consider Brother Danny to be a “deliberate false teacher” on this subject as I am convinced that you are on the various false doctrines that you teach. For there is a difference between one who is a false teacher because he is mistaken and one who is deliberately a false teacher who knows that his doctrines are false and teaches such with the fullest intent to deceive. Now that is the kind of false teacher you are Brother Davis. And the difference is a significant one. The former need only be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly and the latter need to be given the first and second admonition and then be rejected by the body of Christ. There is where you fit Brother Davis. For your false doctrines are deliberate lies which you know to be contrary to the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

"Seems I've touched a nerve."

Is that you purpose to "touch nerves" and deliberately irratate others? It seems so. But I doubt very seriously if you could even prove that you have succeeded in doing such to Brother Scott. He is pretty level headed. You could not touch a nerve with him if your life depended upon it. You do flatter yourself far too much.

And I find all of this discussion concerning "degrees" which you stated pure foolishness. And I find it to be straying far from the subject of this thread which appears to be your actual intent. For the one thing a deliberate false teacher such as yourself would love to see is that we would never be a "people of the Book" for that Book is contrary to all that you have taught thus far in this forum and we have shown that to be the case and you have not been able to answer our argument yet, now have you? You just do not want to "waste your time with it" because you know how miserably you would fail.

Then you say:

"Scott, in your own words thou dost protest too much. If you want to defend a degree mill, that is up to you -- you should be embarassed."

All of you should be embarrased over this pathetic comparisons between various educational institutions and degrees held and whether they are good degrees from reputable institutions or not. Especially in a thread dedicated to the subject of being a "people of the Book". Your degrees have not helped you to understand the book at all as far as your teaching in this froum has demonstrated.

Brethren:

Forget about this nonsense about degrees and get back to the subject of the importance of learning the word of God and being a people of the book. And do not allow this deliberate false teacher to derail the opportunity that we have to begin a discussion of the books of the Bible in an expository way in this forum. Anyone that cannot see Satan at work in Brother Davis with these comments is just ignorant of Satan's devices or blind to the facts.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

I'll ask again . . . what have you guys got against Southeast Christian in Louisville?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry,

I do not feel I have to "defend" Summit, George Faull, Ed Bousman, or any other godly man or institution you wish to malign. They stand up pretty well for those seeking to hear the unashamed Gospel.

You have, in my opinion, demonstrated singlehandedly why the Restoration Movement is no longer regarded as a "People of the Book." You probably would have called Alex Campbell's Buffalo College a diploma mill, recommending his students go to the big college so they could be taught what everyone else was taught. You would have chided R.C Foster and co. when they had the idea of beginning Cincinnati Bible College, because we already had schools teaching the Bible and only a sectarian Pharisee would think we needed schools that were more conservative.

You are amazing.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

E. Lee,

If I am such a blatantly false teacher, and an "evil man", why do you persist in calling me Brother?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Mark,

George must have forgot to teach you this verse:

(Matthew 5:22) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Since you referred to both yourself and me as a "fool" I am concerned for you.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

"E. Lee, If I am such a blatantly false teacher, and an "evil man", why do you persist in calling me Brother?"

Simply because no matter how "blatant" you are in teaching that which is false you are still my Brother. You are my brother in Christ, if you have ever obeyed the gospel of Christ. ANd I am trusting Brother Danny's checking that those who write in the forum are among those who have at some time in their lives obeyed the gospel.

If you have never obeyed the gospel of Christ then you are not my brother in Christ. But you are my Brother because you are a human being created in the image of God.

In either case you are my brother in some sense and it is therefore right and good for me to call you brother. I could easily stop calling you brother but I see no reason to do so. FOr I am appealing to you as a brother to turn from these lies with you teach. I see nothing wrong in doing so and therefore most likelyu will continue whether you like it or not.

But you will be judged in the last day according to the word of God as will all of your brethren including myself. FOr CHrist said, he that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The words which I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48). "It is appointed unto man once to die and after this cometh the Judgement." (Heb. 9:27). And whether I called you brother or not will have no bearing upon your case in that day. But your teaching that which is contrary to the truth will. For God will Judge you in these things. But do not think that I bid you Godspeed in calling you brother. (2 John 9-11).For by calling you brother I recognize the truth that you are such. But in no way whatsoever do I do anything except resist your lies and false doctrines at each opportunity that I have to do so.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

IHS,

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Well Barry,

From what I read of your posts.................at least I was right about you. :-)

I consider foolish anyone who forms opinions & states prejudical remarks without any knowledge on the subject. You do not know Summit, nor do you know George Faull - therefore your derogatory comments make you a fool by definition.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry,

I appreciate your above post and most of what follows was written before I saw it, but the point I try to make is a valid one.

No, I am not embarassed of Summit. Actually I am quite pleased that I graduated from there.

We used to be a people of the Book because men and women went indepth into the Word and lived it out. We were able to discuss the deeper doctrines of Scripture within the halls of the CHurch building and people knew what you were talking about. But the standard has been so lowered that we are embarassed to even mention basic doctrines, much less the deeper ones.

For example, I went to your website. It is very attractive, but to find out what you believe about salvation, I have to personally visit your "Guest Information Center." Barry, I truly am not trying to be unjustly critical here, but are you embarassed about the basics of the Scripture? Where are the words of Peter and Paul concerning salvation. You state there that your believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Great! Let's see some on the website. A large part of our Movement has become ashamed of the Words of Scripture. In your "Welcome" section you say lots of nice thing to make people feel good. How about pointing them to Christ with the Scriptures? Where is that ANYWHERE on your site? You talk about "community" and "no pressure" but where is the "Thus saith the Lord?"

Now, I do not know if you are the one who produces your web site or not, so you may have no control over that. I could have used many other websites as an example so I am not singling you out except fro the fact that you are the one I'm discussing this with. But I think the attitude that your web site and so many others demonstrate, whether intentional or unintentional, is one of an unspoken embarassment of the Doctrines of the Scriptures. That's another reason we are no longer a People of the Book.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Scott,

I guess I can't win here. First I'm criticized for having a statement of faith, and now I'm criticized by you for not saying enough about what we believe!

I've been to your website also. There are many things you do not address there about your beliefs. Since when was it a rule that websites have to state everything about what a church believes? By your reasoning, I imagine you also have a doctrinal statement including all of your beliefs on your church sign or posted to your church building so that no one that drives by could have any doubt about what you stand for?

When you go out in public, do you have a doctrinal statement taped to your person so that everyone can know what you do and do not stand for? I think you're getting a bit ridiculous here and simply fishing for something to complain about.

In our church we do not hold back on any of our beliefs. The fact of the matter is, non-Christians are not going to come to our church because of our doctrinal statement. They have no criteria by which to judge whether our beliefs are true or not. Our doctrinal position is more for believers than the unchurched. I have to get them in the door to be able to explain to them what we believe and why. Of course, we also do this in their homes if they are receptive to that.

I've baptized 8 Catholics in the last two years, as well as Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Mennonites. Is there something wrong with that too?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Berry,

There is nothing wrong with that as long as they were baptised for the forgiveness of sin.

And I think you missed my point. I was simply using your site as an example. I could've used many other subjects. No, I do not have everything on the Church sign. But when a person goes to a web site they go for information, so why not give it to them there?

I also understand that for some/many people they will not be attracted by doctrinal statements - so put them in their own section of the site for those who do want to know what you believe without all the fluff.

BTW, I meant what I said. It is a good looking site. You could teach me a thing or two about putting them together.

And just for your information, I do own shirts that have the plan of salvation printed on them. That has started many discussions.

Gotta go.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Didn't mean to misspell your name. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001